# Lifestyles & Discussion > Open Discussion >  (War on Women) NYC: 10 hours of Harassment or Compliments?

## aGameOfThrones

> Video: A hidden GoPro records the shocking harassment women are subjected to in NYC
> 
> 
> Women who get catcalls as they walk down the street arent just a tired cliché we see in movies and TV shows. The Daily Show recently proved this by using a GoPro to record one womans daily stroll through New York City. The GoPro  which was being held by a friend in front of her  records her journey as shes accosted by several would-be suitors.
> 
> 
> The video was created for an anti-harassment organization called Hollaback. The woman in the video was a volunteer who walked New York City for 10 hours and recorded what people would yell at her.
> 
> In the video, the woman is constantly harassed, followed, and hit on by numerous men throughout her trek through the city. Even as she kept silent, they still persisted.
> ...




Fuuuuuuuuuuuck! She was being rude to some.


http://bgr.com/2014/10/28/street-har...k-gopro-video/

----------


## dannno

Not having sex for extended periods can be extremely painful physically, mentally, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually. In fact, I think it can become traumatizing for men not to have sex. I believe it causes a host of health problems, I'm not quite sure why the only one that has been documented so far is prostate cancer: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...rostate-cancer

I think a lot of women actually want to have sex, but due to societal pressures from other women, and even men, they abstain because they don't want to be thought of as cheap or a slut or whatever even though they are engaging in a perfectly healthy activity. There's nothing wrong with monogamous sex, imo, however even many men who are monogamous complain that they don't get enough sex. This often leads to feelings of not being appreciated by their spouse.

On top of the societal pressures for women not to have sex, and the seemingly imbalanced nature of the male and female sex drive on a large scale, we have the fact that many women are on anti-depressants and birth control pills that kill their sex drive (there are other effective birth control options available that don't kill the sex drive). It's no wonder men are so desperate for sex... and sex is seen as something that is 'fun', recreational and wholly unnecessary by most of society, even though lack of sex can clearly lead to psychological, emotional, physical and mental impairments.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

I don't necessarily buy that this behavior is primarily about sex. Seems to me like there's an element of wanting control here that isn't being discussed. The success rate of this kind of behavior is very low, and it comes from the viewpoint that men are entitled to express their enthusiasm about having sex with a woman even if it clearly makes her uncomfortable. What kind of a person would want to have sex with someone that was clearly uncomfortable about the whole situation? Again, this is one of those situations where the woman is put in an awkward and possibly dangerous situation - women have been attacked and killed for walking away from street harassers. So this is why I believe it's largely an issue of power. There have been plenty of times where I've seen men on the street and thought "10/10, would smash," but it would never occur to me to actually express this because they are private individuals and complete strangers with their own lives who don't need my approval. I have enough social skills to recognize when people clearly aren't interested or want me in their space. 

The "oh woe is me, I'm lonely" excuse doesn't hold water with me, either. This is caused by a societal tendency to place way too much emphasis on sex as a motivating factor and dehumanizes men. They're not deserving of pity, but they do deserve to be held accountable for their actions as autonomous human beings.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

10 hours of walking, and that is what they got, and a good portion of those were not sexual in nature. 

Anyway, I don't live in a city, I live in a $#@!ty town of less than 20,000 people. I've not seen cat calls, well, outside of like bar environments anyway, but never witnessed it in a normal walking situation. 

So, I guess Large urban areas just suck, I already knew that.

----------


## alucard13mm

What about the experiment where women supposedly stare at a guy with a supposedly huge penis?

----------


## Anti Federalist

We've been told that manners, civility and "acting like a gentleman" are worthless and meaningless throwbacks to a dead era.

So, this is what you get.

----------


## asurfaholic

> What about the experiment where women supposedly stare at a guy with a supposedly huge penis?


He was harassing the women by exposing his privates through his clothes. What are they supposed to do, pretend they don't notice?

----------


## jonhowe

I live in washington heights in Manhattan, a mostly dominican neighborhood north of harlem. Cat calling is an every day thing here, and in much of the city. Some is harmless, just annoying, but a good deal is extremely aggressive. I have several female friends and coworkers who regularly have threatening interactions in all areas of the city. 

As the homeless population grows, the number of creepy/crazy/aggressive catcallers will only increase.

----------


## AuH20

> We've been told that manners, civility and "acting like a gentleman" are worthless and meaningless throwbacks to a dead era.
> 
> So, this is what you get.


They should stop complaining about these wonderful fruits the woman's liberation movement has spawned.

----------


## Carlybee

It's not about sex. It's about chest thumping.

----------


## dannno

> It's not about sex. It's about chest thumping.


That's part of it, but it is really more about sex. Guys do it when other guys aren't around too.  It's usually more like they know they are probably never going to be with a girl that pretty for the rest of their lives anyway so they may as well go for it, they have nothing to lose. 

I'm personally not a cat caller, and really, it's not nearly as big on the west coast as it is on the east coast in my experience. However I have seen plenty of guys completely flub conversations with younger/pretty girls who they are clearly attempting to hit on.. it's usually just less of a cat all and more like actually starting a conversation and turning it in that direction.

----------


## LibForestPaul

> I don't necessarily buy that this behavior is primarily about sex. Seems to me like there's an element of wanting control here that isn't being discussed. The success rate of this kind of behavior is very low, and it comes from the viewpoint that men are entitled to express their enthusiasm about having sex with a woman even if it clearly makes her uncomfortable. What kind of a person would want to have sex with someone that was clearly uncomfortable about the whole situation? Again, this is one of those situations where the woman is put in an awkward and possibly dangerous situation - women have been attacked and killed for walking away from street harassers. So this is why I believe it's largely an issue of power. There have been plenty of times where I've seen men on the street and thought "10/10, would smash," but it would never occur to me to actually express this because they are private individuals and complete strangers with their own lives who don't need my approval. I have enough social skills to recognize when people clearly aren't interested or want me in their space. 
> 
> The "oh woe is me, I'm lonely" excuse doesn't hold water with me, either. This is caused by a societal tendency to place way too much emphasis on sex as a motivating factor and dehumanizes men. They're not deserving of pity, but they do deserve to be held accountable for their actions as autonomous human beings.


You are a women. You do not approach men. You decide, from men who approach you, judge their dance, then accept or reject.

----------


## aGameOfThrones



----------


## Carlybee

> That's part of it, but it is really more about sex. Guys do it when other guys aren't around too.  It's usually more like they know they are probably never going to be with a girl that pretty for the rest of their lives anyway so they may as well go for it, they have nothing to lose. 
> 
> I'm personally not a cat caller, and really, it's not nearly as big on the west coast as it is on the east coast in my experience. However I have seen plenty of guys completely flub conversations with younger/pretty girls who they are clearly attempting to hit on.. it's usually just less of a cat all and more like actually starting a conversation and turning it in that direction.


I'm probably the wrong person to comment on this. When I was younger and got catcalls I was likely to go get right in their faces, but I always saw it as posturing.

----------


## thoughtomator

My impressions:

1) Skin-tight clothes are not as modest as they are being made out to be.
2) All of the really creepy stuff is coming from thuggish black men, something the feminists who are celebrating this video don't exactly want to emphasize.
3) 10:00:00 of walking around in the street produced 00:01:30 of video. Not exactly a dramatic result.
4) Parts of that video are completely non-offensive yet portrayed as harassment.
5) The set of clips from @0:35 to @0:44 are all either normal, polite behavior or don't appear to be directed at her at all. 
5) As someone who knows Manhattan intimately, I could not help but notice she was choosing pretty crappy neighborhoods overall to walk in. I mean seriously, walking around alone at the Port Authority at night? Walking around side streets in Harlem as a white woman, alone?
6) I couldn't help but wonder why the much more attractive Asian woman who is in one of the clips (@0:26, with the dog) is not being harassed. Perhaps there is some sort of provocation on her part that was edited out of the video?
7) If there were 100+ instances of street harassment, as the text in the video claims, why were far fewer than that shown? Why not include them all?

My verdict: *This video is an act of trolling*.

----------


## euphemia

A guy who catcalls has a problem with his masculinity and confidence.  And intelligence, probably.  Do men really think that kind of stuff is a turn on?

Better he carries some actual cash:  "Hi, I'm Julio/Mike/Ben.  There's a coffee shop on the corner.  Do you have time?"

I don't know that I would have ever said yes to someone like that, but I would be a whole lot less tempted to do or say something horrible to him.

Men need to figure out that they will get what they ask for.  If they want a real relationship with a real woman, they need to act like it.

----------


## BamaAla

Who acts like that toward women? Dudes that do that have some serious issues and I would be afraid that they may be given to violence, so I guess I understand the fear women have. 

That said, from what I saw in the video, it seems like they are exaggerating a bit.

----------


## KingNothing

> It's not about sex. It's about chest thumping.


Daaaaamn, mami why you gotta be like dat?  Smile once in a while!  You look pretty when you smile, baby!

----------


## Antischism

> My impressions:
> 
> 1) Skin-tight clothes are not as modest as they are being made out to be.
> 
> *Victim blaming and even clothing that isn't tight results in women getting constantly cat-called.*
> 
> 2) All of the really creepy stuff is coming from thuggish black men, something the feminists who are celebrating this video don't exactly want to emphasize.
> 
> *What is your point? That if you grow up in a culture where it's prevalent, you're more likely to emulate that behavior? Look at all the so-called pick-up artists; a lot of them are white. They do this very thing except to a greater extreme. Not sure why you're bringing up 'thuggish black men' when women get it from men of all backgrounds.*
> ...


*No, you're being willfully ignorant.*

When you try to analyze these things, you can't think about it from a male point of view. Men don't get constantly cat-called while walking down the street like women do nor do they fear being sexually assaulted by an aggressive stranger. A guy might think it's flattering because he doesn't experience the 'joys' of being constantly shouted at and cat-called, so any compliment for a man will be flattering since it happens so infrequently in this manner. Your average woman has to put up with these advances, creepy behavior and cat-calls just for walking down the street minding their own business every day. It's not difficult to understand why random strangers even saying something as simple as "have a good day" or whatever it is, can be annoying or come across as an advance.

----------


## Spikender

Ladies, carry a gun.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> I live in washington heights in Manhattan, a mostly dominican neighborhood north of harlem. Cat calling is an every day thing here, and in much of the city. Some is harmless, just annoying, but a good deal is extremely aggressive. I have several female friends and coworkers who regularly have threatening interactions in all areas of the city. 
> 
> As the homeless population grows, the number of creepy/crazy/aggressive catcallers will only increase.


I get it at *least* twice a week, and have had to duck into a very public place (like a coffee shop) a few times to stop them from following me, or at least help me feel a *little* bit better.

Depending on my mood, sometimes I give it back.

Once I was man-handled and pushed into a store by two (very drunk and seemingly violent) men in broad daylight (the owner and the men were speaking in a foreign language so I knew I wouldn't get any help there) - I really thought I would be fighting for my life that day - I grabbed my keys in my pocket and was really considering the best time to slash them.  This was in Brooklyn, and not a bad area, either.  No one should be made to feel like that.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Victim blaming and even clothing that isn't tight results in women getting constantly cat-called.


When you're a white chick walking alone in Harlem, yeah. Under normal circumstances, no.




> What is your point? That if you grow up in a culture where it's prevalent, you're more likely to emulate that behavior?


My point is that if you hang around low-class people you'll encounter low-class behavior.




> Look at all the so-called pick-up artists; a lot of them are white. They do this very thing except to a greater extreme. Not sure why you're bringing up 'thuggish black men' when women get it from men of all backgrounds.


Did you actually watch the video? _One_ guy who said something offensive was white.




> They do this very thing except to a greater extreme. Not sure why you're bringing up 'thuggish black men' when women get it from men of all backgrounds.


No they're not getting it from men of all backgrounds, only the slimeballs, and the bulk where black men in Harlem. Note that not one of those men was decently dressed. You are treating the captions as if they were fact, when in fact the video itself contradicts it. You are weak-minded and easily influenced by propaganda, it appears.




> Which parts? Where they were being 'polite' to the woman? The intent behind that is obviously more than a simple hello. You wouldn't see these people being that openly friendly to anyone else in NYC unless there were some other motive behind it.


Oh, really? I lived in NYC quite some time, and I got plenty of simple hellos from people. There are people in NYC who do that, believe it or not. Again, these things are being presented to you in a specific context so you buy the context, whether or not the evidence actually fits.




> It happens in all parts of NYC, more in some parts than others of course, but why should time of day and location even matter?


Who is being "willfully ignorant" now? Take your white ass on a 2 AM stroll through Bed-Stuy and tell me how it goes for you. When you get robbed and beaten, tell me how unfair it is that you were a complete idiot.




> What if that's the route a woman has to take throughout her day? Or are you going to blame them for not going out of their way to avoid certain places because some men can't control themselves?


Because of course every woman spends 10 hours a day walking in the streets of NYC, right?




> I'm not understanding what you're getting at here. That there's no way this could happen and they were clearly provoking it in some way because you find another woman to be more attractive in that particular shot? This isn't a good point at all.


What I'm getting at is it is absolutely trivial to provoke many of these behaviors, if your intent is to create a feminist propaganda video. All she needs to do is lock eyes with a target and edit out the come-on part. Note we do not get to see the parts leading up to the behaviors.




> Why don't you ask them or check out tons of other videos showing this happens frequently on the daily? Because it does. I see it all the time and have heard stories from female friends. Hell, I've had it happen to women I was dating right in front of my face.


Me too. Here's a clue train coming through - it's NEW YORK $#@!ING CITY. The most densely populated place in America. There's a lot of other $#@! that happens every single day to everyone - aggressive panhandling, for one; solicitations to buy drugs; people accosting other people in the street for a wide variety of reasons. You could make this _exact same video_ to present the case that any one of these things is epidemic and omnipresent. It's a function of being in a big city - if you can't deal with it, then move the hell out. When you live in New York City, you have to learn not to care about the stupid and offensive things you see going on around you.




> When you try to analyze these things, you can't think about it from a male point of view.


Because, of course, the intent is to produce a piece of feminist propaganda, the male point of view must be discounted entirely, right?




> Men don't get constantly cat-called while walking down the street like women do nor do they fear being sexually assaulted by an aggressive stranger. A guy might think it's flattering because he doesn't experience the 'joys' of being constantly shouted and cat-called, so any compliment for a man will be flattering since it happens so infrequently in this manner. Your average woman has to put up with these advances, creepy behavior and cat-calls just for walking down the street minding their own business every day. It's not difficult to understand why random strangers even saying something as simple as "have a good day" or whatever it is, can be annoying or come across as an advance.


If you think this way, you don't belong in a city - period. That line of thinking ranges from paranoid to just plain arrogant.

You've made 90 seconds of video filmed over 10 hours - most of which was a single white woman walking alone in places where a single white woman should not be walking alone - into something completely other than what it actually is. None of my female friends or acquaintances in New York felt so oppressed living there - none. And I have known hundreds of them. And the reason why is that this video is completely atypical of the actual experience of real human beings in real-world conditions.

If you had to watch the entire 10 hours of film, you'd be like, this is pretty boring, not much happening here.

Take your propaganda-twisted opinions and stick them where the sun don't shine. Those of us who have real experience and know the terrain find nothing terribly shocking about this video, and much deceptive about it.

----------


## vita3

NYC is the worst city in the world, in many aspects. Realize this "community" has never caught the actual criminals of 911.  

There also the mass media  & financial HQ's.

This video is absolute JOKE compared to their real crimes & ways.

----------


## ZENemy

Open carry would cut this phenomenon by 80%.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

She got harassed because she purposefully walked through $#@! neighborhoods, just to make a video. I've been to NYC lots of times and the only harassment I ever see is someone trying to sell people crap. Oh yeah I also don't walk alone in the $#@! areas. They were probably hitting on the camera girl, anyway.

And that video really cherry picks. 10 hours of footage and the best crap they can come up with is "have a good evening?" They never show anyone actually violating her by putting their arm around her or something. I guess keeping your hands to yourself isn't good enough anymore. I say that's pretty good for walking through a neighborhood where there's at least one homicide every 2 days.

But of course, a few men calling a girl sexy is way more offensive than living in or by a neighborhood rampant with thieves and murderers.

btw I don't fall for this war on women bull$#@!. The only reason you don't see desperate women on the street grabbing onto men is because they don't need to ask to get what they want. And there's a few that still do, anyway, and I guarantee the maker of the video would make light of a woman on the street coming onto a man, grabbing and touching on him. Because doing something to a woman is worse than doing something to a man. 

And oh yeah, people who are hurt by words need to grow a pair. But I guess saying that is sexist.

----------


## TheTexan

Don't wanna get cat-called?  Don't be hot... pretty simple!

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> Don't wanna get cat-called?  Don't be hot... pretty simple!


She's pretty average IMO those guys probably hit on her because they think she's not completely out of their league

----------


## RM918

Regardless of whatever this video pulled up or where it happened, catcalling is the activity of an utter douchebag and I wish it were more treated as such. I've never heard myself or any friend I've ever had talking about doing it, but when it does happen it is unacceptable.

----------


## jonhowe

This needs to go here:

----------


## ZENemy

This is nothing but more padding for HITlery win in 2016.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

The thing is, no one here is comparing crimes besides the men who commented here trying to make a point; because otherwise they had no point.

"_I've_ never see it."
"Don't walk around $#@! neighborhoods, then."

How ridiculous.

And then the conversation went to her _looks_.




> Those of us who have real experience...


Like mine, which was given no attention.  *So, how about you take your self-righteous "twisted opinion and stick it where the sun don't shine" - if you can manage to, with your head already up there.*

----------


## Spikender

> The thing is, no one here is comparing crimes besides the men who commented here trying to make a point; because otherwise they had no point.
> 
> "_I've_ never see it."
> "Don't walk around $#@! neighborhoods, then."
> 
> How ridiculous.
> 
> And then the conversation went to her _looks_.
> 
> ...


Here's my question though: what do you suggest be done about it?

It's common knowledge for a lot of people not to walk through these type of areas. I was in Baltimore two months ago and was hit up just about every five minutes by someone trying to sell drugs, passports, or getting accosted by random Latinos. Granted, I made the mistake of just walking around downtown Baltimore at one in the morning with some buds, but what can I do about that? Men get robbed and stolen from every day out in the street, but you simply either pack protection or are just smart enough not to walk around those areas. There is little else that can be done other than trying to educate people and lift them out of that kind of mindset.

If that's what you're advocating, I'm down, but we can't make excuses and act like it's every man or woman's fault that these things happen. Education will only go so far when a lot of the men harassing women in the street likely aren't listening and don't pay attention to that sort of thing. And woe to the man who tries to intervene because unless he's prepared he might just get in a street fight and get his lights knocked out.

----------


## JK/SEA

is this just the 'too many 'rats' in one place' theory playing out the symptom in real time?....

whats the solution besides just arbitrarily bashing these idiots with namecalls?....

----------


## Anti Federalist

Men are, statistically, many more times likely to be the victim of a violent crime than women are.

Just sayin...

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Here's my question though: what do you suggest be done about it?
> 
> It's common knowledge for a lot of people not to walk through these type of areas. I was in Baltimore two months ago and was hit up just about every five minutes by someone trying to sell drugs, passports, or getting accosted by random Latinos. Granted, I made the mistake of just walking around downtown Baltimore at one in the morning with some buds, but what can I do about that? Men get robbed and stolen from every day out in the street, but you simply either pack protection or are just smart enough not to walk around those areas. There is little else that can be done other than trying to educate people and lift them out of that kind of mindset.
> 
> If that's what you're advocating, I'm down, but we can't make excuses and act like it's every man or woman's fault that these things happen. Education will only go so far when a lot of the men harassing women in the street likely aren't listening and don't pay attention to that sort of thing. And woe to the man who tries to intervene because unless he's prepared he might just get in a street fight and get his lights knocked out.


Walking somewhere in broad daylight just trying to get to work or get errands done, which is the setting where I've personally experienced this sort of thing, is a vastly different situation from wandering around in Baltimore at 1 AM. This is not limited to "bad neighborhoods", either - plenty of entitled college students on cozy, protected campuses engage in this behavior simply because they can get away with it. 




> And woe to the man who tries to intervene because unless he's prepared he might just get in a street fight and get his lights knocked out.


This is precisely the reason why there needs to be a dialogue on this issue and not just "well, boys will be boys and this is all about sex." You have just conceded that there is a threat of violence involved, and so it's _not_  just innocuous comments. Oftentimes those are followed by more specific or persistent harassment. If you think someone is pretty, admire them from afar. Why must attraction be broadcasted so aggressively? Look at them, smile and move on.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> "Don't walk around $#@! neighborhoods, then."


But isn't there some level of blame to be placed on somebody, male or female, who knowingly waltzes into a "bad neighborhood"?

There are places in NOLA for instance, that, if you, as a lone white person, male or female, were to wander into at 0300, there's a pretty good chance you are not coming back out, short of in the back of ambulance.

Or a hearse.

Or has political correctness gone so far as to be suicidal now?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If you think someone is pretty, admire them from afar. Why must attraction be broadcasted so aggressively? Look at them, smile and move on.


Yes, I already touched on this, it used to be called manners, civility and "acting like a gentleman".

We have been told by the Idiocracy that these things no longer matter.

----------


## Spikender

> Walking somewhere in broad daylight just trying to get to work or get errands done, which is the setting where I've personally experienced this sort of thing, is a vastly different situation from wandering around in Baltimore at 1 AM. This is not limited to "bad neighborhoods", either - plenty of entitled college students on cozy, protected campuses engage in this behavior simply because they can get away with it. 
> 
> This is precisely the reason why there needs to be a dialogue on this issue and not just "well, boys will be boys and this is all about sex." You have just conceded that there is a threat of violence involved, and so it's _not_  just innocuous comments. Oftentimes those are followed by more specific or persistent harassment. If you think someone is pretty, admire them from afar. Why must attraction be broadcasted so aggressively? Look at them, smile and move on.


First of all that was just my latest example. I said myself it wasn't smart of me to walk around that time of night, but even during the day in Baltimore it was only a little better. I was actually threatened with violence walking down a main road in Baltimore the day before simply over what I was wearing. And that wasn't my home city either, where I've experienced similar incidents.

The fact is that it isn't just casual harassment, cat-calling, and stalking, it's just a general culture of violence toward outsiders or those who they think they can bully. It takes a lot more than just having a dialogue about not harassing women to fix the problem, at least to me. That's a part of the dialogue, but far from the whole thing. This is a mentality that has been ingrained for years, a simple dialogue isn't going to fix it especially when the people responsible are hardly going to listen and take it to heart.

----------


## Acala

> I get it at *least* twice a week, and have had to duck into a very public place (like a coffee shop) a few times to stop them from following me, or at least help me feel a *little* bit better.
> 
> Depending on my mood, sometimes I give it back.
> 
> Once I was man-handled and pushed into a store by two (very drunk and seemingly violent) men in broad daylight (the owner and the men were speaking in a foreign language so I knew I wouldn't get any help there) - I really thought I would be fighting for my life that day - I grabbed my keys in my pocket and was really considering the best time to slash them.  This was in Brooklyn, and not a bad area, either.  No one should be made to feel like that.


The physical contact is already a crime (battery), and should be.

The verbal abuse isn't a crime and should not be, but it is obnoxious and repulsive.  Not sure what to do about it.  It is a part of the sick culture of certain groups of males and they are just not going to respond to a public dialogue about it.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> First of all that was just my latest example. I said myself it wasn't smart of me to walk around that time of night, but even during the day in Baltimore it was only a little better. I was actually threatened with violence walking down a main road in Baltimore the day before simply over what I was wearing. And that wasn't my home city either, where I've experienced similar incidents.
> 
> The fact is that it isn't just casual harassment, cat-calling, and stalking, it's just a general culture of violence toward outsiders or those who they think they can bully. It takes a lot more than just having a dialogue about not harassing women to fix the problem, at least to me. That's a part of the dialogue, but far from the whole thing. This is a mentality that has been ingrained for years, a simple dialogue isn't going to fix it especially *when the people responsible are hardly going to listen and take it to heart.*


They most likely can't read also. But this video isn't a call to action about harassment in general, it's a propaganda piece to hate all men.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

I'll just leave this here 



the war on women is about as much of a war on women as the war on terror is a war on terror

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> They most likely can't read also. But this video isn't a call to action about harassment in general, it's a propaganda piece to hate all men.


Meanwhile your signature claims all police officers are thugs that assault and murder civilians.

----------


## EBounding

Rule of thumb:  if it would be weird or dangerous to do the same thing to another man, it's harassment.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> How long are you going to dance around the fact that 100% of the _genuinely_ objectionable behavior in the video comes from an extremely specific demographic?


hate thought crime have this guy arrested!

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> How long are you going to dance around the fact that 100% of the _genuinely_ objectionable behavior in the video comes from an extremely specific demographic?


Focusing on the race and background of the people harassing this woman misses the point that jonhowe is trying to make, which is that this happens in any setting at any time of day or night, and that it's still harassment. I've witnessed and heard it in respectable suburban neighborhoods. Although the racial issue is worthy of discussion (for reasons that are quite different from the ones you stated), it doesn't take anything away from or invalidate the criticism itself.




> Oh, and FYI, if you want to face the reality of the situation, look up some crime victim demographics. Even with regards to sex crimes, men in America are more likely to be victimized than women are, and where it comes to other types of violent crime, men face overwhelmingly greater odds of being a victim thereof.
> 
> So excuse me if the "poor me I feel threatened by wolf whistles" thing doesn't work with me. Men have _far_ more well-grounded fears of being the victim of a serious crime than women do. Grow a thicker skin.


A lot of feminists that aren't the female equivalent of neckbeards (I have lots of my own issues with some self-proclaimed feminists) readily admit that men are more likely to be the victim of sex crimes. In recent times there has been a lot written about this data point. But the fact that this isn't usually discussed openly, if at all, is due to the same "patriarchal" (to borrow the term) framework that feminists readily complain about. Men are thought of as always willing to have sex (therefore they can't be raped, according to this "logic"), and male rape victims in prisons and the military are either silenced or made the butt of cultural jokes ("don't drop the soap!") - or rape becomes a revenge thing. Many intellectually honest feminists discuss these things, and a lot also ask so-called MRAs (men's rights activists) to focus on countermeasures like rape shelters for males, or changing the cultural definition of rape so that it doesn't exclude males from being victims. The Official Definition of rape was changed by the FBI to include male victims _two whopping years ago!_ 

We've already explained why any harassment has to be treated as a potential threat. I don't understand why you are choosing to ignore or dismiss this point, but the fact is, simply walking away from a catcaller can cause the situation to escalate. Bringing methods of self-defense is great advice; I know my friend has had to brandish a knife a few times, but that doesn't mean women should have their concerns dismissed with this advice.

----------


## Acala

> Focusing on the race and background of the people harassing this woman misses the point that jonhowe is trying to make, which is that this happens in any setting at any time of day or night, and that it's still harassment. I've witnessed and heard it in respectable suburban neighborhoods. Although the racial issue is worthy of discussion (for reasons that are quite different from the ones you stated), it doesn't take anything away from or invalidate the criticism itself.
> 
> 
> A lot of feminists that aren't the female equivalent of neckbeards (I have lots of my own issues with some self-proclaimed feminists) readily admit that men are more likely to be the victim of sex crimes. In recent times there has been a lot written about this data point. But the fact that this isn't usually discussed openly, if at all, is due to the same "patriarchal" (to borrow the term) framework that feminists readily complain about. Men are thought of as always willing to have sex (therefore they can't be raped, according to this "logic"), and male rape victims in prisons and the military are either silenced or made the butt of cultural jokes ("don't drop the soap!") - or rape becomes a revenge thing. Many intellectually honest feminists discuss these things, and a lot also ask so-called MRAs (men's rights activists) to focus on countermeasures like rape shelters for males, or changing the cultural definition of rape so that it doesn't exclude males from being victims. The Official Definition of rape was changed by the FBI to include male victims _two whopping years ago!_ 
> 
> We've already explained why any harassment has to be treated as a potential threat. I don't understand why you are choosing to ignore or dismiss this point, but the fact is, simply walking away from a catcaller can cause the situation to escalate. Bringing methods of self-defense is great advice; I know my friend has had to brandish a knife a few times, but that doesn't mean women should have their concerns dismissed with this advice.


I agree that some of it is really inappropriate, insulting, and frightening.  Now what?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I agree that some of it is really inappropriate, insulting, and frightening.  Now what?


Vote harder and ban it.

----------


## acptulsa

> 'I'm not a feminist.  I _like_ men.'--_Angie Dickinson_


Well, I have a problem with the obnoxious.  This does include those who don't know when to shut up, and can't take no for an answer.  This also goes for those who are bound and determined to tell other people what they should like, tell them what they shouldn't like, and try to ostracize those who do like what they 'shouldn't'.

Whether this vid is an attempt to educate men to show more sensitivity, or to demonize men, or simply to convince women to be afraid of any man who likes them (so they'll get frustrated enough to try lesbianism, perhaps?) is an entirely debatable point.

All I know for sure is the easiest way to stir up a war between the sexes is to convince people there's already one underway.  And, you know, ZENemy is right.  We're divided and conquered enough already without that.

----------


## Philhelm

> I think a lot of women actually want to have sex, but due to societal pressures from other women, and even men, they abstain because they don't want to be thought of as cheap or a slut or whatever even though they are engaging in a perfectly healthy activity. There's nothing wrong with monogamous sex, imo, however even many men who are monogamous complain that they don't get enough sex. This often leads to feelings of not being appreciated by their spouse.


Part of the reason is that sex has a "market value" and women know that they can use that in order to obtain things that they want.  Women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment.  To give sex freely is of little worth to a woman.  This is why "slut-shaming" is usually done by women against other women, since a woman that gives sex freely is undercutting the competition.

----------


## thoughtomator

> We've already explained why any harassment has to be treated as a potential threat. I don't understand why you are choosing to ignore or dismiss this point, but the fact is, simply walking away from a catcaller can cause the situation to escalate. Bringing methods of self-defense is great advice; I know my friend has had to brandish a knife a few times, but that doesn't mean women should have their concerns dismissed with this advice.


Same can be said of beggars. I can't count how many times I have seen a beggar turn hostile when I declined to give them money.

There's really only a couple of ways of dealing with the issue. Either we can impose a police state, or each person needs to be responsible for looking out for their own selves. 

The people who put out that video want the former solution.

I from experience know that the latter solution is the more effective one. Situational awareness and a Plan B will keep you safe. Whining that it's not fair will not keep you safe.

It really doesn't take very much experience to learn what kinds of people to steer clear of in NYC. Took me all of two months tops to learn it, so unless you just stepped off the bus, there really is no excuse. This woman was deliberately putting herself into bad situations and is whining for sympathy because for 90 seconds out of 10 hours bad things happened in bad situations.

She actually has no idea what men go through - women have it easy. A male of the same color and age walking through some those same neighborhoods would be lucky to make it through alive and in one piece.

The unfortunate reality is that there is a savage element among the desperately poor in the cities and that, not the catcalling, is the real problem here.

----------


## acptulsa

> Same can be said of beggars.


A more perfect comparison I cannot imagine.

----------


## Philhelm

> The "oh woe is me, I'm lonely" excuse doesn't hold water with me, either. This is caused by a societal tendency to place way too much emphasis on sex as a motivating factor and dehumanizes men. They're not deserving of pity, but they do deserve to be held accountable for their actions as autonomous human beings.


Only women deserve pity in our society.  Of course, most women (and I mean every woman that doesn't have a hideous disfigurement combined with a rancid stench) will never know what it is like to be truly lonely.  Women have a higher sexual market value which is why they can typically date up; a female "3" will have a much easier time finding a mate than a male "3."  No job?  No house?  No car?  No worries!  Not so for a male.

----------


## Acala

> Vote harder and ban it.


Yup.  There is no problem that cannot be made worse by the application of more government.

----------


## PRB

Good news: it's not illegal and won't be illegal anytime soon, there's no way to prohibit making one time comments without infringing on free speech. There's no way to tell if a person was saying hi and being friendly vs being creepy if it was a one off shot.

----------


## Philhelm

> Good news: it's not illegal and won't be illegal anytime soon, there's no way to prohibit making one time comments without infringing on free speech. There's no way to tell if a person was saying hi and being friendly vs being creepy if it was a one off shot.


If the man is a hot alpha stud then it was friendly.  If the man is unattractive to the female then it was creepy.  Women have utter contempt and absolutely no empathy for weak males.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Same can be said of beggars. I can't count how many times I have seen a beggar turn hostile when I declined to give them money.
> 
> There's really only a couple of ways of dealing with the issue. Either we can impose a police state, or each person needs to be responsible for looking out for their own selves. 
> 
> The people who put out that video want the former solution.
> [...]
> 
> She actually has no idea what men go through - women have it easy. A male of the same color and age walking through some those same neighborhoods would be lucky to make it through alive and in one piece.
> 
> The unfortunate reality is that there is a savage element among the desperately poor in the cities and that, not the catcalling, is the real problem here.


Actually, no feminist I have seen commenting on the matter has advocated for a literal police state to combat the problem, and I see no reason to likewise assume that that is what the makers of this video want (even if they did, again, it wouldn't invalidate their concerns). Cultural pressure is generally what feminists like to talk about; i.e., (to also answer Acala's question), if people have friends who harass others, they need to sit them down and simply talk about why it's inappropriate to do so. If this sounds preposterous to you, I'll offer anecdotally that I know plenty of males on my FB who said they would be discussing these issues with their friends. A lot of people frankly have no idea that what they are doing is wrong until someone (parents or peers, depending on age and the situation) gives them a real talking-to about it. I'm (I hope not too charitably) guessing a lot of the people who post on this board are decent enough to not associate with people who behave this way, or not to raise kids who act like this, but just in case... that would be my advice. Stating bluntly that it's sort of $#@!ed up and gross to harass people and that you wouldn't remain friends with anyone who did it is a small action, but if enough people did so, it would be at least noticeably different from the current status quo.

"Do it because you want people to be better, and because you intend to hold humanity accountable for producing disgusting, petulant man-trolls who think they’re entitled to other people’s time and attention. Do it because you’re gonna stop the cycle of disgusting, petulant man-trolls right flipping now, in your own flipping life," to quote an article I read on this subject a few days ago. This is strong language that may provoke a typically defensive response, but to me, this is no different from countless libertarian-themed attempts to change people's minds re: the topic of big government. It's parallel to the philosophical activism that the namesake of this forum holds so dear. 

Again, the rest of this post is mostly assumption. "She has no idea what males go through" - has she specifically spoken about the video yet, and have you personally contacted her to get her opinion? Yes, there is a violence problem in bigger cities, but this isn't a time to be hosting the Oppression Olympics right now. This is a video made about the very specific issue of catcalling, and how catcalling indeed ties into larger problems of violence and poverty. The very fact that this sort of behavior occurs across all manner of social situations and settings, however, means that catcalling and the entitlement mentality are "real problems" in and out of themselves. Catcalling specifically is not chiefly a violence and poverty problem, it's in all likelihood a breeding and cultural problem that is reinforced by popular culture and a few other forces.

----------


## Slave Mentality

Divide and conquer, how does it work? This thread is a small case study. The propaganda media is playing some of you like fiddles.

----------


## mad cow

She should walk around San Francisco or Portland for 10 hours smoking a cigarette and wearing a mink stole and record the harassment/compliment ratio.

And maybe the sex of each harasser/complimenter.

----------


## dannno

> If the man is a hot alpha stud then it was friendly.  If the man is unattractive to the female then it was creepy.  Women have utter contempt and absolutely no empathy for weak males.


Yes, unattractive men need to learn their place and not give compliments to attractive women who are obviously so much better than them.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I live in washington heights in Manhattan, a mostly dominican neighborhood north of harlem. Cat calling is an every day thing here, and in much of the city. Some is harmless, just annoying, but a good deal is extremely aggressive. I have several female friends and coworkers who regularly have threatening interactions in all areas of the city. 
> 
> As the homeless population grows, the number of creepy/crazy/aggressive catcallers will only increase.





> My point is that if you hang around low-class people you'll encounter low-class behavior.


Exactly, don't go to places where people behave this way.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Yes, unattractive men need to learn their place and not give compliments to attractive women who are obviously so much better than them.


Or, in this case, hideously unattractive women. She really is so homely that her promo pic is difficult to look at. That's one fugly woman - which is actually really really hard to do for a 24-year-old female in good health. Mind you, her fugliness has no relevance to any of the other points being made here, other than perhaps that low-class creeps may think they have a better shot at a butterface chick than a decent-looking one.

----------


## Acala

> Actually, no feminist I have seen commenting on the matter has advocated for a literal police state to combat the problem, and I see no reason to likewise assume that that is what the makers of this video want (even if they did, again, it wouldn't invalidate their concerns). Cultural pressure is generally what feminists like to talk about; i.e., (to also answer Acala's question), if people have friends who harass others, they need to sit them down and simply talk about why it's inappropriate to do so. If this sounds preposterous to you, I'll offer anecdotally that I know plenty of males on my FB who said they would be discussing these issues with their friends. A lot of people frankly have no idea that what they are doing is wrong until someone (parents or peers, depending on age and the situation) gives them a real talking-to about it. I'm (I hope not too charitably) guessing a lot of the people who post on this board are decent enough to not associate with people who behave this way, or not to raise kids who act like this, but just in case... that would be my advice. Stating bluntly that it's sort of $#@!ed up and gross to harass people and that you wouldn't remain friends with anyone who did it is a small action, but if enough people did so, it would be at least noticeably different from the current status quo.
> 
> "Do it because you want people to be better, and because you intend to hold humanity accountable for producing disgusting, petulant man-trolls who think they’re entitled to other people’s time and attention. Do it because you’re gonna stop the cycle of disgusting, petulant man-trolls right flipping now, in your own flipping life," to quote an article I read on this subject a few days ago. This is strong language that may provoke a typically defensive response, but to me, this is no different from countless libertarian-themed attempts to change people's minds re: the topic of big government. It's parallel to the philosophical activism that the namesake of this forum holds so dear. 
> 
> Again, the rest of this post is mostly assumption. "She has no idea what males go through" - has she specifically spoken about the video yet, and have you personally contacted her to get her opinion? Yes, there is a violence problem in bigger cities, but this isn't a time to be hosting the Oppression Olympics right now. This is a video made about the very specific issue of catcalling, and how catcalling indeed ties into larger problems of violence and poverty. The very fact that this sort of behavior occurs across all manner of social situations and settings, however, means that catcalling and the entitlement mentality are "real problems" in and out of themselves. Catcalling specifically is not chiefly a violence and poverty problem, it's in all likelihood a breeding and cultural problem that is reinforced by popular culture and a few other forces.


I am all in favor of changing culture from the bottom up.  Indeed, that is the only way to bring about social change.  But, frankly, I don't know a single person who would behave that way so I don't feel there is much I can do beyond saying that I can appreciate why women might object to some of this crap.  Good luck.

----------


## Philhelm

> Or, in this case, hideously unattractive women. She really is so homely that her promo pic is difficult to look at. That's one fugly woman - which is actually really really hard to do for a 24-year-old female in good health. Mind you, her fugliness has no relevance to any of the other points being made here, other than perhaps that low-class creeps may think they have a better shot at a butterface chick than a decent-looking one.


I'm repeating myself, but women have a higher sexual market value than men (at least at that age).  Men will typically lower their standards in order to have sex with a less attractive female than to go home alone at the end of the night.  This is why women tend to get an inflated sense of sexual worth/attractiveness.  A 10/10 alpha stud will use a 7/10 for sex, thereby artificially validating the woman's sense of self-worth.  Of course, the alpha stud would never commit to the 7/10, since he is aiming for a 10/10.  This is part of the reason women can never find a "good man."  They are used to having sex with men who are above their true sexual value and have no reason to commit to a man of their level.  Meanwhile, the 7/10 man who is attracted to the 7/10 female is invisible to her, so will likely have to date down.  The omega men are the worst off, since even an ugly female can get laid in a pinch.  However, the omega man is invisible to the world and usually end up as furries or cosplay folks.

----------


## Philhelm

> I am all in favor of changing culture from the bottom up.  Indeed, that is the only way to bring about social change.  But, frankly, I don't know a single person who would behave that way so I don't feel there is much I can do beyond saying that I can appreciate why women might object to some of this crap.  Good luck.


Never listen to what women say; always watch what women do.  A lot of behaviors that women _say_ turn them off are often behaviors that attract them.  This is where the Bad Boy/Nice Guy dynamic comes into play.  A woman may _say_ that she wants a stable, honest, intelligent, humorous, kind man, but ultimately such a man can only fill a boring provider role ("Beta Bucks").  Meanwhile, the man that can command a woman and play with her emotions will give her the tingles ("Alpha $#@!s").

----------


## acptulsa

> Divide and conquer, how does it work? This thread is a small case study. The propaganda media is playing some of you like fiddles.


This.

And the worst part is, most of us here know full well that The State wants to destroy the family unit, so The State can play Mommy and Daddy to everyone.  And I think more than a few of us here know that, like the sheiks of Araby for the last few hundred years, the fact that more than a few women are inclined to fight over a powerful man even if they lose a few good men in the process has never bothered those in power one bit.

Yeah, the Battle of the Sexes has always been terrible.  But, like democracy, the only thing worse is any of the alternatives.

A neurotic populace is easy to manipulate.  If we don't watch for efforts on the part of the powers that be to make us as neurotic as they can, we are fools.




> ...it's in all likelihood a breeding and cultural problem that is reinforced by popular culture and a few other forces.


It's a force of nature and a fact of life.  It, like a million other things, is something that some people naturally do well, others have to learn and some can never get.  To smile and converse with a person and give them a nonthreatening casual compliment is something almost everyone on earth appreciates.  Even rude catcalls are something that no small number of people dream of getting thrown their direction.  I'm not changing the subject from apples to oranges, here, either.  This is one topic, with varying degrees of good, bad and over the top.

Hell, the true irony is that no one can teach a boy how to do this right better than a father can, but so few families are able to stay together in the face of governmental and media opposition to the traditional family unit that dads never get the chance.  Not that this bothers the government; creating the problem and then creating a string of non-solution solutions like the ones mentioned here doesn't bother the current crop of powers that be one bit.

RG, surely there's a better way to address liberal concerns than abandoning liberty principles 'just this once' (not that you've only advocated this sort of thing only once).  I know I've _always_ found libertarian principles to lead to _better_ solutions myself--and can almost always convince a liberal of the same.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> What about the experiment where women supposedly stare at a guy with a supposedly huge penis?


Everyone knows that women "check out" other women just as much, if not more than men.




> Exactly, don't go to places where people behave this way.


Here's an interesting case. There was a city that put a ton of money into revitalizing this particular street with restaurants and bars on it. It never was a slum, just kind of neglected. It became very popular. The more crowded it became, the more of a bad element showed up, harassing women on that popular street. Police had trouble keeping up with it, and as you suggested, many people stopped going there, especially women. Kind of a shame how a few bad apples could ruin economic development like that.

----------


## Matt Collins

Upon giving this more thought... I think there should be a clarification of the different types of behavior on display here...


- There is threatening behavior which should never be tolerated and is never acceptable (carrying of weapons would help individuals om these circumstances feel more secure)


- There is rude or uncouth behavior which can rise to threatening, but most of the time it doesn't and is harmless... 


- Then there is just being overly friendly or outgoing.


In the OP, most of the behavior displayed was friendly or just uncouth.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Only women deserve pity in our society.  Of course, most women (and I mean every woman that doesn't have a hideous disfigurement combined with a rancid stench) will never know what it is like to be truly lonely.  Women have a higher sexual market value which is why they can typically date up; a female "3" will have a much easier time finding a mate than a male "3."  No job?  No house?  No car?  No worries!  Not so for a male.


Look, I'm just as much of a fan of economic analysis as anyone you'll ever meet, but there are several situations that cannot adequately be analyzed through the lens of simple supply and demand. Sex is one of those things. Essentially casting women as the supply curve and men as the demand curve is extremely reductive because it treats women as objects and ignores the myriad individual variations in sexual or relationship preferences. A more apt analogy is to consider men and women as independent agents rather than as a simple producer-consumer relationship. 

The market for sex is more accurately a barter economy that happens to be terribly inefficient. It isn't that women set their standards (or price) too high, it's that in a barter economy, there is no medium of exchange and thus the task is to find a partner that is both desirable and reciprocates that desire. Using this analysis, we avoid oversimplification and pave the way for some libertarian solutions, the biggest one of which is dating sites (they reduce transaction costs). 

Suggesting that women heighten their standards, thereby encouraging "good men" to develop into their possible partners is analogous to suggesting that women form a cartel in which the agreement is to "not settle for bad men," but as we all know from Micro 101, there is an incentive for members of this cartel to defect; in other words, settle. So there will never be a solution to this ill that supposedly plagues society.

The final problem with the usual "economics of sex" argument is that it ends up arguing that the men who pay the highest price for sex (marrying, "settling down") are the best men, but this is obviously biased and doesn't take people's wide sexual preferences into account. Essentially what this analysis is saying is that the best men hire the most expensive prostitutes.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> This is nothing but more padding for HITlery win in 2016.


Hillary 2016!




> I really wish people could zoom out and see the big picture. 
> 
> Their only desire is to now get men and women to engage in the same exact debate that's happening in this thread. They want the men on Romneybushpaulclinton side and the females to side with Hilary. 
> 
> They divide us by race, sex, color and religion all day, every day and most of us walk right into it. All these people know how to do is get us to HATE.


Actually, it's worse than that. Men will also be convinced that voting for Hillary and "going against men" is a good thing.

This was a somewhat revealing analysis from a leftist on how the demonization actually works:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...and-code-words

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Upon giving this more thought... I think there should be a clarification of the different types of behavior on display here...
> 
> - There is threatening behavior which should never be tolerated and is never acceptable (carrying of weapons would help individuals om these circumstances feel more secure)
> 
> - There is rude or uncouth behavior which can rise to threatening, but most of the time it doesn't and is harmless... 
> 
> - Then there is just being overly friendly or outgoing.
> 
> In the OP, most of the behavior displayed was friendly or just uncouth.


And any grabbing or blocking a person is in that first category.

----------


## jonhowe

> How long are you going to dance around the fact that 100% of the _genuinely_ objectionable behavior in the video comes from an extremely specific demographic?


The demographic is poor and uneducated. In Manhattan, that's mostly blacks and hispanics. In parts of queens and brooklyn it comes from all over the world and in all colors.

I'll admit you don't get much of THIS kind of harassment in Chinatown or Koreatown, though.

----------


## PRB

> Upon giving this more thought... I think there should be a clarification of the different types of behavior on display here...
> 
> 
> - There is threatening behavior which should never be tolerated and is never acceptable (carrying of weapons would help individuals om these circumstances feel more secure)
> 
> 
> - There is rude or uncouth behavior which can rise to threatening, but most of the time it doesn't and is harmless... 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed. Explicit threats or repeated harassments are already illegal, anything short is protected speech.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Once I was man-handled and pushed into a store by two (very drunk and seemingly violent) men in broad daylight (the owner and the men were speaking in a foreign language so I knew I wouldn't get any help there) - I really thought I would be fighting for my life that day - I grabbed my keys in my pocket and was really considering the best time to slash them.


That is criminal. They should be prosecuted.

----------


## acptulsa

> Look, I'm just as much of a fan of economic analysis as anyone you'll ever meet, but there are several situations that cannot adequately be analyzed through the lens of simple supply and demand. Sex is one of those things. Essentially casting women as the supply curve and men as the demand curve is ...


...absolutely *NOT* what the man did.  Read it again, and figure out where you twisted it.




> That is criminal. They should be prosecuted.


Amazing, isn't it, how many people thing passing a host of new laws for enforcement to enforce will help us enforce the laws we already have?

----------


## jonhowe

> Exactly, don't go to places where people behave this way.


I like my (Manhattan based) job, and I'd rather put up with the neighbors (and the reggaeton at 2am) than leave the city!
That doesn't mean I need to condone and just accept the threatening and aggressive behavior of a minority of my neighbors.

If I could afford to live in the Village or Park Slope I would.




> Vote harder and ban it.


Putting words in the mouths of everyone on the other side of the issue doesn't help.

I certainly am not suggesting legislation of any kind. Men, all over, simply need to stop tolerating this kind of behavior in each other. Call it out; name and shame the $#@!s who do this kind of thing.

By discussing the phenomenon (which, clearly many here still fail grasp the severity of) we can bring it to the attention of those who may not regularly think about it and get them to call it out when they see it, too.

----------


## jonhowe

> In the OP, most of the behavior displayed was friendly or just uncouth.


Nothing in the OP was in any way friendly. What planet are you on??

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Men are, statistically, many more times likely to be the victim of a violent crime than women are.
> 
> Just sayin...





> How long are you going to dance around the fact that 100% of the _genuinely_ objectionable behavior in the video comes from an extremely specific demographic?


True story that combines those two ideas. A guy was walking down the street in San Francisco (Marxist heaven) with his wife and kid in a stroller. A guy (bum) was walking past, and pulled out a knife and cut him in the arm as they walked past. Just a little blood, not enough to require stitches. (Infections?!) He finally got the attention of some Police, and the guy hadn't gotten too far, so the Police stopped him. The Police pretty much said to the victim "you look okay, you'll have to file charges and go to court if you want to pursue this". He says yes. Some weeks, if not months later, he got a call from the courts (DA?), and asked him again if he really wanted to file charges. Pretty sure he had to go to the court, and identify the guy in court. The court had wanted to drop it, and interestingly, the initial Police report listed the race of the assaulter as "white", when in reality he was black. Either the Police made a mistake in their report, or they wanted to skew stats, or they wanted the case to get thrown out.

----------


## Acala

> Never listen to what women say; always watch what women do.  A lot of behaviors that women _say_ turn them off are often behaviors that attract them.  This is where the Bad Boy/Nice Guy dynamic comes into play.  A woman may _say_ that she wants a stable, honest, intelligent, humorous, kind man, but ultimately such a man can only fill a boring provider role ("Beta Bucks").  Meanwhile, the man that can command a woman and play with her emotions will give her the tingles ("Alpha $#@!s").


I don't think you have it quite right.  Women are attracted to men who are confident.  Unfortunately, being an $#@! can look like confidence.  But a man doesn't have to be an $#@! to be perceived as confident.  In fact, he can be all of the things you list as "beta" but still be confident and attractive.  It is the confidence that is key.  Sadly, men who have every reason to be confident because of the characteristics you list as "beta", often have the idea that they should also be docile and compliant.  THAT'S where the sexual attraction starts to drain away.

----------


## dannno

> Essentially casting women as the supply curve and men as the demand curve is extremely reductive because it treats women as objects and ignores the myriad individual variations in sexual or relationship preferences. A more apt analogy is to consider men and women as independent agents rather than as a simple producer-consumer relationship.




I disagree about the independent agent vs. supply thing and demand and here is why.. Society tends to think that attractive people have these 'high standards' because, well, that's just the way they are. They think a hot female should not be attracted to an unattractive male because some how their attractiveness is inscribed in their DNA and their DNA is attracted to attractive people. That is total bull$#@!. Attractive people say they aren't attracted to unnattractive people because they don't NEED to be. If they weren't successful with attractive people all of a sudden, let's say they gained weight or have a horrible personality or get into some sort of accident, you will likely find them lowering their standards. 

A person's standards is a function of their attractiveness and a) sexual drive or b) relationship drive

A woman who has a low sex drive and medium relationship drive and is moderately attractive will have higher standards than a woman who has a low sex drive and high relationship drive who is equally attractive. A man who has a high sex drive and a low relationship drive is moderately attractive will have lower standards than a man who has a low sex drive, low relationship drive and is equally attractive.

This is why Phil's theory works so well, women do in fact '$#@! 'up'' and men do in fact '$#@! 'down'' due to these supply and demand differences, not because these 'independent agents' have these inherited 'standards' that are ingrained in their biology and seem to relatively match their own attractiveness level. 

You are right about women defecting and 'settling down', that happens often....but before that happens they are having sex above their grade with a few guys who are having a lot of sex while less attractive guys who may actually want to date them may be sitting at home alone. 

In other words, yes, women are fooling themselves when they have sex with a very attractive guy - if they are doing it purely for sexual reasons, then good for them, but if they aren't doing it just for sexual purposes and are actually trying to get a longterm relationship out of it, well, that is their right and they can try if they want but ultimately they will probably be unsuccessful.

----------


## Deborah K

This goes here:

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> ...absolutely *NOT* what the man did.  Read it again, and figure out where you twisted it.


Perhaps I should have been more clear by quoting one of his other posts in my response. I'll reproduce what I was specifically responding to below:



> Part of the reason is that sex has a "market value" and women know that they can use that in order to obtain things that they want.  Women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment.  To give sex freely is of little worth to a woman.  This is why "slut-shaming" is usually done by women against other women, since a woman that gives sex freely is undercutting the competition.


"Women are the gatekeepers of sex" pretty clearly indicates that women are meant to be seen as the suppliers in his analogy, and slut-shaming has been discussed as a method of "preserving the cartel" - exactly what he is saying here. 




> Exactly, don't go to places where people behave this way.


If you don't like America, well, you can just leave!

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> Perhaps I should have been more clear by quoting one of his other posts in my response. I'll reproduce what I was specifically responding to below:
> 
> 
> "Women are the gatekeepers of sex" pretty clearly indicates that women are meant to be seen as the suppliers in his analogy, and slut-shaming has been discussed as a method of "preserving the cartel" - exactly what he is saying here. 
> 
> 
> If you don't like America, well, you can just go leave!


I could make a video of me walking in the crappy section of a city for 10 hours with me carrying a 6 pack and produce a video of a dozen hobos asking me for a bottle.

----------


## acptulsa

> Perhaps I should have been more clear by quoting one of his other posts in my response. I'll reproduce what I was specifically responding to below:
> 
> 
> "Women are the gatekeepers of sex" pretty clearly indicates that women are meant to be seen as the suppliers in his analogy, and slut-shaming has been discussed as a method of "preserving the cartel" - exactly what he is saying here.


And my point is that men want women and women want men.  And anyone who is trying to interfere with that, or trying to get people to go for what they _don't_ really want in a member of the opposite sex, is propping up the divorce rate and making people miserable, and is therefore an enemy to humanity.

And as libertarians, we are fools to address the problem on their terms.  That makes us part of the problem, when we are all better off figuring out how to untangle the whole thing and become (thereby) a part of the solution.

What's more, when you propose a solution that does not go against the natural instincts of people (even if it's just a cogent and erudite version of 'Don't worry about it,' you are more convincing to people of _every_ political stripe.




> I could make a video of me walking in the crappy section of a city for 10 hours with me carrying a 6 pack and produce a video of a dozen hobos asking me for a bottle.


No need to carry that much weight.  Just put something the size and shape of a pack of cigarettes in your shirt pocket.

----------


## specsaregood

> This is why I wish more of the general public would understand and support the idea of concealed carry.  In my opinion, you would have been fully justified in shooting those guys.


Yeah, especially the guy that wished her a nice day and god bless you. she shoulda capped that guy!

----------


## Matt Collins

> I like my (Manhattan based) job, and I'd rather put up with the neighbors (and the reggaeton at 2am) than leave the city!
> That doesn't mean I need to condone and just accept the threatening and aggressive behavior of a minority of my neighbors.


Then that is a cost-benefit decision that you have made... accepting bad behavior from others because you like your job more than dislike the bad behavior.

----------


## Philhelm

> Look, I'm just as much of a fan of economic analysis as anyone you'll ever meet, but there are several situations that cannot adequately be analyzed through the lens of simple supply and demand. Sex is one of those things. Essentially casting women as the supply curve and men as the demand curve is extremely reductive because it treats women as objects and ignores the myriad individual variations in sexual or relationship preferences. A more apt analogy is to consider men and women as independent agents rather than as a simple producer-consumer relationship.


Of course women enjoy sex too, but since men place a higher demand on sex (since it is more difficult for most of them to obtain), women are more readily able to leverage the transaction to their favor; they can have their cake and eat it too.  In fact, women _desire_ to have sex with the alpha male stud, and since the alpha stud would rather have sex with a female 7 than to go home alone for the night, the rest of the men are put at a severe disadvantage based upon their sexual market value pecking order.  Why should the female 7 have sex with the male 7 when the alpha stud has approached her?




> The market for sex is more accurately a barter economy that happens to be terribly inefficient. It isn't that women set their standards (or price) too high, it's that in a barter economy, there is no medium of exchange and thus the task is to find a partner that is both desirable and reciprocates that desire. Using this analysis, we avoid oversimplification and pave the way for some libertarian solutions, the biggest one of which is dating sites (they reduce transaction costs).


It isn't that women set their standards too high (that's for them to decide as individuals), but that they inflate their own sexual market value since even the 7 female will be utilized for sex by the top alpha men.  What these women don't seem to understand is that these alpha men will _never_ commit to or marry them ("Why can't I find a good man?" Syndrome).  Since the 7 female is used to easily obtaining sex from men who are likely in the 8+ range, the 7 male will become invisible to her even though he may be the mate that best matches her.

Actually, dating sites are awful for men.  There are many more men on the dating sites which gives women even more leverage than within the general population.  An average woman could easily receive 50+ emails in one week, while an above-average male (perhaps a 7) will be lucky to receive any emails or many responses from females.




> Suggesting that women heighten their standards, thereby encouraging "good men" to develop into their possible partners is analogous to suggesting that women form a cartel in which the agreement is to "not settle for bad men," but as we all know from Micro 101, there is an incentive for members of this cartel to defect; in other words, settle. So there will never be a solution to this ill that supposedly plagues society.


Standards are often impacted by what is obtainable.  The top 50% of women can easily obtain sex from the top 25% of males, which leaves the bottom 75% of males to pick from the bottom 50% of females.  A woman will settle when her sexual market value decreases.  When a woman is young and pretty she is in her prime and can have her choice of men sexually, since women are the gatekeepers of sex.  However, a man's sexual market value does not hit a hard wall since other factors such as status and wealth can provide enough fuel for him to continue dating younger women; in fact, a man in his early 20's is probably not at his peak sexual value.  When the woman realizes that the alpha males are no longer interested, she will finally look at the 7 male to have a family with.  Of course, this man doesn't give her the tingles like her previous alpha lovers had done, and she probably won't do the same things in the bedroom with her 7 husband than she would with a one-night-stand alpha stud.  This is called "Alpha $#@!s/Beta Bucks."  A woman will prefer the Alpha but will use the Beta to be a provider and "good father" (how sweet, but sweet doesn't give her the tingles).




> The final problem with the usual "economics of sex" argument is that it ends up arguing that the men who pay the highest price for sex (marrying, "settling down") are the best men, but this is obviously biased and doesn't take people's wide sexual preferences into account. Essentially what this analysis is saying is that the best men hire the most expensive prostitutes.


This is wrong since men are the gatekeepers of commitment and the best men simply have no need to marry.  Currently, the top men have absolutely no reason to marry a woman if sex is readily available.  However, if a man does marry he does pay the higher price, since he is sacrificing possibly more frequent sex with a greater variety of women in exchange for the risk of divorce rape.  It's the 7 male that becomes the sucker once the women who didn't even acknowledge him start to take interest only because they begin to realize that the alpha studs aren't coming around anymore.

----------


## acptulsa

> This goes here:


_If_ women catcalled men?

When did some of them ever not catcall men?

----------


## Deborah K

> _If_ women catcalled men?
> 
> When did some of them ever not catcall men?


Just trying to bring a little levity to the madness going on in this stupid ass thread.

----------


## Philhelm

> I don't think you have it quite right.  Women are attracted to men who are confident.  Unfortunately, being an $#@! can look like confidence.  But a man doesn't have to be an $#@! to be perceived as confident.  In fact, he can be all of the things you list as "beta" but still be confident and attractive.  It is the confidence that is key.  Sadly, men who have every reason to be confident because of the characteristics you list as "beta", often have the idea that they should also be docile and compliant.  THAT'S where the sexual attraction starts to drain away.


I agree with everything you stated.  It's not that being stable, honest, intelligent, humorous, and kind are Beta traits, but that those are not the traits that give women the tingles (like Alpha traits produce).  An Alpha can certainly have those traits, but a woman isn't going to have sex with a man because he is smart, funny, kind to animals, or whatever else women will say/write in person or on a dating profile.

The Bad Boy/Nice Guy dynamic is a bit disingenuous since it isn't so much that the Nice Guy is nice as he is a weakling.  A woman doesn't really want a truly *BAD* Boy, but a bad person who is Alpha will have luck than a good person who is Beta.

----------


## presence



----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> And my point is that men want women and women want men.  And anyone who is trying to interfere with that, or trying to get people to go for what they _don't_ really want in a member of the opposite sex, is propping up the divorce rate and making people miserable, and is therefore an enemy to humanity.
> 
> And as libertarians, we are fools to address the problem on their terms.  That makes us part of the problem, when we are all better off figuring out how to untangle the whole thing and become (thereby) a part of the solution.
> 
> What's more, when you propose a solution that does not go against the natural instincts of people (even if it's just a cogent and erudite version of 'Don't worry about it,' you are more convincing to people of _every_ political stripe.


The biggest problem I see with your post is that you are making all sorts of assumptions and expecting me to take things as given. Going off of what you said, men want women and women want men. But the "interference" you speak of is purely defensive, a reaction against what has already been historically imposed as part of a 'political' (being used here in its most general sense) process. The "natural instincts of people" you go on to cite is a loaded term with no clear definition - it is clear that every person has his or her own wants, needs and desires (themselves not always static), and so what can rightly be called "natural?" If you are referring to social trends that have been culturally dominant, it is impossible to tell whether these trends are actually natural (biologically-based) or artificial. A plethora of evidence points to these so-called "natural instincts" being at best downright untestable, and at worst not actually natural at all. 

It is exceedingly libertarian-minded to question the existing order, the divorce rate be damned (and do you not see how you are making an unjustified normative judgment here?). I think for at least some people, there is a strong correlation between being married and miserable... not all, which is a fascinating question in its own right, but a subject not suitable for this particular thread. People asking the same questions I am *are* untangling the whole thing and de-politicizing the things many people have become conditioned to accept. This has nothing to do with Hillary 2016, though shallow people may think it does. There is a marked difference between garden-variety pop feminism and the stuff that gets discussed among people with a legitimate knowledge of the subject matter.

----------


## pessimist

> I agree with everything you stated.  It's not that being stable, honest, intelligent, humorous, and kind are Beta traits, but that those are not the traits that give women the tingles (like Alpha traits produce).  An Alpha can certainly have those traits, but a woman isn't going to have sex with a man because he is smart, funny, kind to animals, or whatever else women will say/write in person or on a dating profile.
> 
> The Bad Boy/Nice Guy dynamic is a bit disingenuous since it isn't so much that the Nice Guy is nice as he is a weakling.  A woman doesn't really want a truly *BAD* Boy, but a bad person who is Alpha will have luck than a good person who is Beta.



Yes, because ALL women just can't keep their panties on around the chest thumping "ME- MAN, ME- COMMAND, ME MAKE YOU HORNY!" Alpha male studs.

You do realize many of those dudes are viciously mocked by women with an IQ over 100, right?

Sure, some of them maybe worthy of a one night stand if he hot enough or she is drunk enough, but come on man. This 'alpha/beta' stuff is mostly bull$#@! that is best left in the jungle where it came from.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> *No, you're being willfully ignorant.*
> 
> When you try to analyze these things, you can't think about it from a male point of view. Men don't get constantly cat-called while walking down the street like women do nor do they fear being sexually assaulted by an aggressive stranger. A guy might think it's flattering because he doesn't experience the 'joys' of being constantly shouted at and cat-called, so any compliment for a man will be flattering since it happens so infrequently in this manner. Your average woman has to put up with these advances, creepy behavior and cat-calls just for walking down the street minding their own business every day. It's not difficult to understand why random strangers even saying something as simple as "have a good day" or whatever it is, can be annoying or come across as an advance.


That's because of the fact that men are usually stronger than women and more aggressive.  They're not afraid to walk down the street because they know they have a much better chance of being able to repel any aggression.  So what if it's true that women have to fear this more?  It's due to biology.  What are you going to do about it?  Outlaw compliments that "seem creepy"?  

Sure, it may be a dickish thing to do, but who is it hurting, honestly?  If someone commits violence against a woman, they deserve the fullest justice under the law, but not until then.  How does anyone propose we change this?  There will always be weirdos on the street and no amount of social engineering is going to fix that.  

Seriously, who has an idea for how we stop thugs from cat-calling?  What does it help to even bring attention to this issue?

----------


## Philhelm

> "Women are the gatekeepers of sex" pretty clearly indicates that women are meant to be seen as the suppliers in his analogy, and slut-shaming has been discussed as a method of "preserving the cartel" - exactly what he is saying here.


Women are not strictly the suppliers of sex since they also want sex (from alpha males).  However, they are the gatekeepers of sex since they are the ones to decide which men they will have sex with.  After all, it is far, far easier for women to have a high partner count then men.  Similarly, homosexual men tend to have high partner counts since their sexual success does not depend on the female "gatekeeper."  The counterbalance is that men are the gatekeepers of commitment (this does NOT mean that men don't want to commit - to the right woman).

Men have no reason to hate sluts, aside from the fact that they aren't relationship material, and therefore have less of a reason to "slut shame."  It's mostly women that complain about other slutty women.  Along with bona fide prostitutes, slutty women reduce the value of the average woman's pedestalled vagina.  In strictly sexual terms, why should a man commit to a woman when he can have sex through simple monetary transaction or have it freely given by the "slut?"

----------


## Deborah K

> In strictly sexual terms, why should a man commit to a woman when he can have sex through simple monetary transaction or have it freely given by the "slut?"


You'll never find a truthful answer to this question.  I would say most men crave loving relationships with women as much as women do.  For men who love their women, sex is the way they feel loved back.  So, if a women who loves her man, isn't meeting that need, her man isn't going to feel loved - no matter how clean the house is, or how good she looks, or how good she cooks.  amirite?

----------


## Philhelm

> Yes, because ALL women just can't keep their panties on around the chest thumping "ME- MAN, ME- COMMAND, ME MAKE YOU HORNY!" Alpha male studs.


An Alpha male isn't the same thing as a meathead, chest-thumping jock.  A man of good looks, confidence, and high status is going to get a more favorable reaction from women than Joe Average, or the nicest, funniest, smartest, man alive if he acts weak in front of the woman (of course, even Betas get women, but they have to date down).




> You do realize many of those dudes are viciously mocked by women with an IQ over 100, right?


Don't listen to what women say; watch what they do.  But again, the Alpha isn't supposed to be what you envision it to be.




> Sure, some of them maybe worthy of a one night stand if he hot enough or she is drunk enough, but come on man. This 'alpha/beta' stuff is mostly bull$#@! that is best left in the jungle where it came from.


Alpha $#@!s/Beta Bucks.  Of course a hot, young stud who lives with his parents isn't good long-term relationship.  She may marry or have a long-term relationship with the man who can better provide for her, but she probably did things to the stud that she wouldn't do with her own husband (even though he craves those things).  This is where you get situations where a woman will talk about how she used to have threesomes, or perform certain sexual acts, but won't with her husband (whom she presumably loves above all others) because "she's not like that anymore."  LOL - that's not the real reason.  The real reason is that her sweet husband and loving father to her children does not invoke the same fires within her that she had experienced when she rode the cock carousel in her youth.

----------


## acptulsa

> But the "interference" you speak of is purely defensive, a reaction against what has already been historically imposed as part of a 'political' (being used here in its most general sense) process. The "natural instincts of people" you go on to cite is a loaded term with no clear definition...


There is some truth to that, just as the Civil Rights Act was a defensive reaction to a politicized situation.  But by the same token, much of what the Civil Rights Act (to a lesser degree) and what has come after (to a greater degree) has brought to pass is no cure, but instead seemingly designed to prolong the agony.  Yes, it's good that no one is still trapped by peer pressure and law into miserable marriages.  But no child benefits from the growing attitude that members of the opposite sex are disposable goods.  Children _can_ thrive with step- or foster- or adoptive-parents, but no one can know them better than their natural parents.  To have people not taking the relationship that produces their children seriously at any point has clearly not been beneficial to society.  And when I say that, what I mean is it hasn't led to happy people.

And of course 'natural instincts' has no clear definition.  How could it?  We are all imperfect people, and most of us have 'good instincts' which means we're really looking for people whose strengths mirror our weaknesses.  Unless, of course, we've been brainwashed into thinking we need and deserve someone who looks like Brad Pitt, or plays the guitar, or has power, or drives a Porsche, or...




> I think for at least some people, there is a strong correlation between being married and miserable... not all, which is a fascinating question in its own right, but a subject not suitable for this particular thread.


How not?  This whole War on Men Who are Allegedly Already at War With Women is _highly_ politicized.  That's absolutely prime fodder for this thread, this forum and the libertarian philosophy.




> It is exceedingly libertarian-minded to question the existing order, the divorce rate be damned (and do you not see how you are making an unjustified normative judgment here?). People asking the same questions I am *are* untangling the whole thing and de-politicizing the things many people have become conditioned to accept. This has nothing to do with Hillary 2016, though shallow people may think it does. There is a marked difference between garden-variety pop feminism and the stuff that gets discussed among people with a legitimate knowledge of the subject matter.


Hm.  You say to hell with the divorce rate and say that you're de-politicizing the thing with the same breath.  Well, then.  Please excuse me for, as a disposable man, thinking that you just might have only half of a legitimate knowledge of the subject matter...

And, yes, libertarians do question the status quo.  So do progs.  That's quite a trap.  But it isn't that hard to avoid a pratfall.




> "A liberal is a man who wants to use his own ideas on things in preference to generations who he _knows_ know more than he does."--_Will Rogers 1923_





> 'We come here to honor the past, and in doing so render more secure the present.'--_Calvin Coolidge_

----------


## Philhelm

> You'll never find a truthful answer to this question.  I would say most men crave loving relationships with women as much as women do.  For men who love their women, sex is the way they feel loved back.  So, if a women who loves her man, isn't meeting that need, her man isn't going to feel loved - no matter how clean the house is, or how good she looks, or how good she cooks.  amirite?


Absolutely correct.

----------


## thoughtomator

> You'll never find a truthful answer to this question.  I would say most men crave loving relationships with women as much as women do.  For men who love their women, sex is the way they feel loved back.  So, if a women who loves her man, isn't meeting that need, her man isn't going to feel loved - no matter how clean the house is, or how good she looks, or how good she cooks.  amirite?


I'll meet that challenge.

Because when a man has relationships with two or more women at a time, they gang up on him, and then he is _guaranteed_ to be miserable.

----------


## Deborah K

> I'll meet that challenge.
> 
> Because when a man has relationships with two or more women at a time, they gang up on him, and then he is _guaranteed_ to be miserable.


And deservedly so.  

I don't think that is exactly the pretext Phil had in mind to his question though.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Regardless of whatever this video pulled up or where it happened, catcalling is the activity of an utter douchebag and I wish it were more treated as such. I've never heard myself or any friend I've ever had talking about doing it, but when it does happen it is unacceptable.


I completely agree with this, but my only question is what in the hell does this accomplish?  What does putting videos of catcalling on the internet do to achieve anything?  You certainly can't prosecute that behavior, so why does anyone even bring attention to this?  All women need to worry about is whether someone is going to be violent, and that's why defending oneself should be legal.  

What happened to just rolling your eyes and moving along?  Now we have to go on some kind of campaign to raise awareness?  What does that accomplish?  Being aware of it is not going to stop it from happening.  Nothing will.

This doesn't even take into account the fact that there was only 90 seconds of footage and many of the things people said weren't that bad, not to mention the fact that she was walking in bad neighborhoods to begin with.  

What's the point of making videos about this?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The thing is, no one here is comparing crimes besides the men who commented here trying to make a point; because otherwise they had no point.
> 
> "_I've_ never see it."
> "Don't walk around $#@! neighborhoods, then."
> 
> How ridiculous.
> 
> And then the conversation went to her _looks_.
> 
> ...


Why is it bad advice not to walk around $#@! neighborhoods?  I'm in the middle of f***ing West Virginia and even I know that poor, low-class trash people tend to live in the same places.  What's so ridiculous about telling people in general to avoid those places?

----------


## juleswin

> Open carry would cut this phenomenon by 80%.


Take it easy man, what you see is people participating in the mating dance. It may no the way you do your dance but start shooting people trying to pick you up and people like me will be coming after you to kick your ass. 

I know it can be frustrating woman to go through but some men are just trying to pick you up. And the way most of them conducted themselves, I see no reason to be pulling out guns or trying to change laws. This video is a compilation of some of the least offensive cat calling I have heard in my life. God bless you, beautiful? come on guys, this is NY city, act accordingly.

And for the people who wonder why anyone would cat call, it is because it works. I have seen it work on several occasions with my 2 naked eyes. Some girls actually stop, have a conversation and exchange numbers.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Idiot?
> 
> Telling people to shut the $#@! up?
> 
> Who pissed in your Cheerios?

----------


## kahless

> I completely agree with this, but my only question is what in the hell does this accomplish?  What does putting videos of catcalling on the internet do to achieve anything?  You certainly can't prosecute that behavior, so why does anyone even bring attention to this?  All women need to worry about is whether someone is going to be violent, and that's why defending oneself should be legal.  
> 
> What happened to just rolling your eyes and moving along?  Now we have to go on some kind of campaign to raise awareness?  What does that accomplish?  Being aware of it is not going to stop it from happening.  Nothing will.
> 
> This doesn't even take into account the fact that there was only 90 seconds of footage and many of the things people said weren't that bad, not to mention the fact that she was walking in bad neighborhoods to begin with.  
> 
> What's the point of making videos about this?


To deservedly shame those that do it and bring us back to the more civilized culture this country once was.  I am not saying there were not these problems in the past, it is just that it is more pervasive now and has escalated with the cultural and demographic change to this country.

It is a bit of a war on women from some groups, but I think "War on Women" in the thread title is a bit misleading these days since I do not see them promoting legislation or aligned with any political ideology. I do applaud them for launching this much needed campaign. 

You do not have to be in poor areas of NYC to experience what she experienced.  I have seen far worse behavior in the northern middle class suburbs of NYC from African American blacks and young Puerto Ricans and Dominicans.  The campaign should probably geo-target to those groups since this kind of behavior seems to be rare outside those demographics and less extreme.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Walking somewhere in broad daylight just trying to get to work or get errands done, which is the setting where I've personally experienced this sort of thing, is a vastly different situation from wandering around in Baltimore at 1 AM. This is not limited to "bad neighborhoods", either - plenty of entitled college students on cozy, protected campuses engage in this behavior simply because they can get away with it. 
> 
> 
> *This is precisely the reason why there needs to be a dialogue on this issue and not just "well, boys will be boys and this is all about sex."* You have just conceded that there is a threat of violence involved, and so it's _not_  just innocuous comments. Oftentimes those are followed by more specific or persistent harassment. If you think someone is pretty, admire them from afar. Why must attraction be broadcasted so aggressively? Look at them, smile and move on.


Ok, so let's have a dialogue:  do you have any ideas of how to stop this?  What do you propose we decent men do about it?  

And also, they ARE innocuous comments until somebody actually does make a threat.  The vast majority of catcalls don't actually involve any direct threats, and touching falls under the category of assault.  But ignoring that, what do we do about just the catcalling?  If a woman gets assaulted, then obviously there are legal consequences, but what do we do about the catcalling?  And furthermore, what does having a dialogue help?  Even talking about it isn't making the *individual* men who engage in this behavior stop.  What do we do?  Please tell us.

----------


## juleswin

> Why is it bad advice not to walk around $#@! neighborhoods?  I'm in the middle of f***ing West Virginia and even I know that poor, low-class trash people tend to live in the same places.  What's so ridiculous about telling people in general to avoid those places?


What exactly did these people do that is so wrong that people are comparing them to low class trash people? Talk to a girl walking the streets where young men congregate for 10 hrs while dressed to impress and them wondering why she got any attention? Human interaction is now seen as an evil thing low class trashy people do.

God bless you. Oops, I hope you can forgive me, I didn't mean to act all trashy and low class by saying that to you.

God help us all.

----------


## kahless

> What exactly did these people do that is so wrong that people are comparing them to low class trash people? Talk to a girl walking the streets dressed to impress for 10 hrs in areas with young men in it and them wondering why she got any attention? Human interaction is now seen as a evil thing low class trashy people do.
> 
> God bless you. Oops, I hope you can forgive me, I didn't mean to act all trashy and low class by saying that to you.
> 
> God help us all.


What if it was a guy doing this to you and started to get overly aggressive.  It would not occur to you that you might have to defend yourself or drop him? Now think of this happening all the time.  How do you think it feels to walk around with that threat all the time especially if you think you may not be able to get away or stop an attack.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> 


Really, what is your issue?

Are you denying that men are the victims of violent crime more often than women?

----------


## juleswin

> What if it was a guy doing this to you and started to get overly aggressive.  It would not occur to you that you might have to defend yourself or drop him? Now think of this happening all the time.  How do you think it feels to walk around with that threat all the time especially if you think you may not be able to get away or stop the attack.


How aggressive? did they touch you? block your path? or anything non verbal? Remember what we all learned as kids. Sticks and stones may break our bones but words would never hurt me. Something like that, sometimes I read threads on RPF and wonder if I somehow wondered into democratic underground.

----------


## Deborah K

I love this scene.  I apologize in advance to the politically correct in this thread:

----------


## aGameOfThrones



----------


## TheTexan

> 


Hot damn, she got some sexy eyes

----------


## juleswin

Sometimes I just wish someone would cat call me . 

A girl squeezed by ass once at a dance club a few years back and I kinda liked it. Isn't that the saddest thing you ever heard?

----------


## Anti Federalist

Still not sure if this is legit or just more of the sanitizing of any butt-hurt from society and people.

The future:

----------


## acptulsa

> Sometimes I just wish someone would cat call me . 
> 
> A girl squeezed by ass once at a dance club a few years back and I kinda liked it. Isn't that the saddest thing you ever heard?


When I was a kid I thought all those women complaining about constant unwanted attention were just being catty and bragging--lording it over every less attractive woman within earshot.

Maybe all of this only _seems_ to be targeted at men.  Maybe this one battle is a war _among_ women.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Sometimes I just wish someone would cat call me . 
> 
> A girl squeezed by ass once at a dance club a few years back and I kinda liked it. Isn't that the saddest thing you ever heard?


Not sad at all.

Nice to know you're wanted...

----------


## Slave Mentality

> 


/thread...... Again 

Look girls you can all be 10s now, or 2s, depending on the dudes.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Actually, no feminist I have seen commenting on the matter has advocated for a literal police state to combat the problem, and I see no reason to likewise assume that that is what the makers of this video want (even if they did, again, it wouldn't invalidate their concerns). Cultural pressure is generally what feminists like to talk about; i.e., (to also answer Acala's question), if people have friends who harass others, they need to sit them down and simply talk about why it's inappropriate to do so. If this sounds preposterous to you, I'll offer anecdotally that I know plenty of males on my FB who said they would be discussing these issues with their friends. A lot of people frankly have no idea that what they are doing is wrong until someone (parents or peers, depending on age and the situation) gives them a real talking-to about it. I'm (I hope not too charitably) guessing a lot of the people who post on this board are decent enough to not associate with people who behave this way, or not to raise kids who act like this, but just in case... that would be my advice. Stating bluntly that it's sort of $#@!ed up and gross to harass people and that you wouldn't remain friends with anyone who did it is a small action, but if enough people did so, it would be at least noticeably different from the current status quo.
> 
> "Do it because you want people to be better, and because you intend to hold humanity accountable for producing disgusting, petulant man-trolls who think theyre entitled to other peoples time and attention. Do it because youre gonna stop the cycle of disgusting, petulant man-trolls right flipping now, in your own flipping life," to quote an article I read on this subject a few days ago. This is strong language that may provoke a typically defensive response, but to me, this is no different from countless libertarian-themed attempts to change people's minds re: the topic of big government. It's parallel to the philosophical activism that the namesake of this forum holds so dear. 
> 
> Again, the rest of this post is mostly assumption. "She has no idea what males go through" - has she specifically spoken about the video yet, and have you personally contacted her to get her opinion? Yes, there is a violence problem in bigger cities, *but this isn't a time to be hosting the Oppression Olympics right now.* This is a video made about the very specific issue of catcalling, and how catcalling indeed ties into larger problems of violence and poverty. The very fact that this sort of behavior occurs across all manner of social situations and settings, however, means that catcalling and the entitlement mentality are "real problems" in and out of themselves. Catcalling specifically is not chiefly a violence and poverty problem, it's in all likelihood a breeding and cultural problem that is reinforced by popular culture and a few other forces


Open your eyes.  Oppression Olympics is exactly what this video is.  It's a competition in the Oppression Olympics.  It's obvious.

----------


## kahless

> How aggressive? did they touch you? block your path? or anything non verbal? Remember what we all learned as kids. Sticks and stones may break our bones but words would never hurt me. Something like that, sometimes I read threads on RPF and wonder if I somehow wondered into democratic underground.


You did not answer the question. I did not call for legislation but a return to civility which seriously lacking in today's America.  I do not see how you equate people behaving in a civilized manner as a quality of the posters at the Democratic Underground.

That video was mild from what I have seen yet some of it concerning and likely scary for a woman having to deal with that regularly.  This since there is always going to be that one guy where it becomes more than words, thinks he deserves her and will take it too far.  (just like the example given in this thread).  You never know which one it is going to be.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I could make a video of me walking in the crappy section of a city for 10 hours with me carrying a 6 pack and produce a video of a dozen hobos asking me for a bottle.


I really think someone should do this.  

Seriously.  Someone make a spoof video like this one with a male actor carrying a six pack and see if you can find 90 seconds of footage in 10 hours.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yeah, especially the guy that wished her a nice day and god bless you. she shoulda capped that guy!


I think KCIndy was talking about Nirvikalpa's experience, which actually was assault.  He wasn't talking about the video.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Take it easy man, what you see is people participating in the mating dance. It may no the way you do your dance but start shooting people trying to pick you up and people like me will be coming after you to kick your ass. 
> 
> I know it can be frustrating woman to go through but some men are just trying to pick you up. And the way most of them conducted themselves, I see no reason to be pulling out guns or trying to change laws. This video is a compilation of some of the least offensive cat calling I have heard in my life. God bless you, beautiful? come on guys, this is NY city, act accordingly.
> 
> And for the people who wonder why anyone would cat call, it is because it works. I have seen it work on several occasions with my 2 naked eyes. Some girls actually stop, have a conversation and exchange numbers.


Come to think of it, you're right.  I didn't think of it before, but there is a guy on youtube who makes prank videos.  I think his name is like David Ross or something and his channel is rosscreations.  Anyway, he got tons of girls numbers just by walking up and saying "You're pretty, can I have your number?"  

It really, truly does work sometimes.  I hadn't even thought of that before, but it's true.  If you want cat-calling to stop, then shame the women who encourage this behavior by responding to it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> 


I don't get it.  He just proved you wrong.  Why do you feel it necessary to call him names?

----------


## aGameOfThrones



----------


## PaulConventionWV

> To deservedly shame those that do it and bring us back to the more civilized culture this country once was.  I am not saying there were not these problems in the past, it is just that it is more pervasive now and has escalated with the cultural and demographic change to this country.
> 
> It is a bit of a war on women from some groups, but I think "War on Women" in the thread title is a bit misleading these days since I do not see them promoting legislation or aligned with any political ideology. I do applaud them for launching this much needed campaign. 
> 
> You do not have to be in poor areas of NYC to experience what she experienced.  I have seen far worse behavior in the northern middle class suburbs of NYC from African American blacks and young Puerto Ricans and Dominicans.  The campaign should probably geo-target to those groups since this kind of behavior seems to be rare outside those demographics and less extreme.


You think shaming is going to stop thugs from being thugs?  Look, people who do this don't have friends who are going to sit them down and say "You should really stop doing that."  People that do this have friends who join in.  

Or were you going to suggest that guys start picking fights with cat-callers and putting themselves at the risk of being attacked?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What exactly did these people do that is so wrong that people are comparing them to low class trash people? Talk to a girl walking the streets dressed to impress for 10 hrs in areas with young men in it and them wondering why she got any attention? Human interaction is now seen as a evil thing low class trashy people do.
> 
> God bless you. Oops, I hope you can forgive me, I didn't mean to act all trashy and low class by saying that to you.
> 
> God help us all.


Ok, maybe I was cutting them too much slack, but it was for the sake of making a point.  The point is that this stuff usually does happen in lower-class areas and there's absolutely nothing wrong with advising people to avoid those areas.  Anyone who says there's something wrong with that is freaking delusional.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

*
http://biography.yourdictionary.com/camille-paglia*

----------


## Philhelm

> Sometimes I just wish someone would cat call me . 
> 
> A girl squeezed by ass once at a dance club a few years back and I kinda liked it. Isn't that the saddest thing you ever heard?


Agreed.  I was once at a club leaning against a table and some girl rubbed her hand across my crotch and smiled as she walked by.  I was too much of a pussy to do anything about it in those days.

The best feeling was when I was at a bar with a friend, and we were talking to some woman.  Out of nowhere, another cute woman approaches me and asked if the girl was hitting on me.  I said, "No," and she said, "Good, because I want to."  I ended up offering to give her and her friend a ride home, along with my friend, and ended up getting it on with her after I dropped off the others.  Easiest lay ever.

----------


## kahless

> You think shaming is going to stop thugs from being thugs?  Look, people who do this don't have friends who are going to sit them down and say "You should really stop doing that."  People that do this have friends who join in.


There is much behavior that be attributed to pop-culture conditioning.  Over time it may work for some.




> Or were you going to suggest that guys start picking fights with cat-callers and putting themselves at the risk of being attacked?


I do not think this is about simple cat-callers which is no biggie.  Following a woman for five minutes and not leaving her alone in an aggressive manner is not simply cat-calling.

Conditioning through pop-culture may bring that aspect of one jerk in a group being told to cut the crap rather than them all joining in.

----------


## kahless

> Not sad at all.
> 
> Nice to know you're wanted...


Yeah, but would it be the same if some creepy looking skank on the street grabbed you in the crotch and would not leave you alone.

----------


## tod evans

> To deservedly shame those that do it and bring us back to the more civilized culture this country once was.  I am not saying there were not these problems in the past, it is just that it is more pervasive now and has escalated with the cultural and demographic change to this country.
> 
> It is a bit of a war on women from some groups, but I think "War on Women" in the thread title is a bit misleading these days since I do not see them promoting legislation or aligned with any political ideology. I do applaud them for launching this much needed campaign. 
> 
> You do not have to be in poor areas of NYC to experience what she experienced.  I have seen far worse behavior in the northern middle class suburbs of NYC from African American blacks and young Puerto Ricans and Dominicans.  The campaign should probably geo-target to those groups since this kind of behavior seems to be rare outside those demographics and less extreme.


I've been known to frequent a few biker bars where this broad in the OP would catch some flack too...

There's something to be said about sticking to places you're comfortable...

You'll not find me in NY state let alone the city, I don't belong there and have no desire to put them or myself through the hassle...

For Heavens sake, I could walk down the same streets as this broad and catch a load of crap too, then again if ya' send the dude in the purple suit out here to the sticks he's not going to fare well either...

People are not homogeneous no matter how hard some try to make it so.......

----------


## juleswin

> You did not answer the question. I did not call for legislation but a return to civility which seriously lacking in today's America.  I do not see how you equate people behaving in a civilized manner as a quality of the posters at the Democratic Underground.
> 
> That video was mild from what I have seen yet some of it concerning and likely scary for a woman having to deal with that regularly.  This since there is always going to be that one guy where it becomes more than words, thinks he deserves her and will take it too far.  (just like the example given in this thread).  You never know which one it is going to be.


To answer your question, I needed to know how aggressive this cat callers were getting. Also, I didn't mean to compare civility to acting like folks from DU. I said in response to the post of people acting like what was shown in the video is a grave injustice to women. One even suggested women carry fire arms to protect themselves from men trying to pick em up. 

You know what happens when one of the guy acts out of line? the other guys who have been attracted to you would want to be your knight in shinning armor and save the day. The guy acting out of line would most likely get beat really bad if there are enough guys in the area that still want you and every guy knows that or just guys who hate to see big men attack poor defenseless women will come to your aid. And I say most likely cos there is a small chance that if you had been rude and nasty with the other guys in the past, they may decide to back off and let you suffer.

I don't mind civility but then again I saw in the video and in my book what they did is neither good or bad. Talking to a woman you are attracted to in the hope she hears it and responds is very normal.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> There is much behavior that be attributed to pop-culture conditioning.  Over time it may work for some.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think this is about simple cat-callers which is no biggie.  Following a woman for five minutes and not leaving her alone in an aggressive manner is not simply cat-calling.
> 
> Conditioning through pop-culture may bring that aspect of one jerk in a group being told to cut the crap rather than them all joining in.


I don't think culture conditioning is going to solve this.  This has been around for most of history.  A guy following you certainly is creepy, and I would definitely think a woman was justified in telling him to back off or else, but I don't think society is going to stop this from happening.  This has happened for most of history, despite the fact that most of the culture usually does not approve of it.  Culture conditioning isn't going to stop thugs from being thugs.  There will always be thugs no matter how much you try to condition them by example.  That's why they're thugs.  Because they don't freaking care about the culture.

People who do this don't surround themselves with friends who tell them to stop.  If they're friends, it usually means they're into the same things.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> I don't think culture conditioning is going to solve this.  This has been around for most of history.  A guy following you certainly is creepy, and I would definitely think a woman was justified in telling him to back off or else, but I don't think society is going to stop this from happening.  This has happened for most of history, despite the fact that most of the culture usually does not approve of it.  Culture conditioning isn't going to stop thugs from being thugs.  There will always be thugs no matter how much you try to condition them by example.  That's why they're thugs.  Because they don't freaking care about the culture.
> 
> People who do this don't surround themselves with friends who tell them to stop.  If they're friends, it usually means they're into the same things.


Have you ever attempted to convert someone to your point of view? Your presence on these threads seemingly indicates this, unless you're one of those people who boringly states an opinion without expecting to debate over it. You're really argumentative for someone who apparently believes people can't be persuaded. I can confidently state that there are men out there willing to have this talk with people they know, because I am dear friends with some of them. Not all catcallers fit the "thug" archetype; there are plenty who are otherwise well-adjusted. It's an ubiquitous phenomenon. 




> Open your eyes. Oppression Olympics is exactly what this video is. It's a competition in the Oppression Olympics. It's obvious.


You've admitted men are often threatened with violence for coming to the defense of someone who is targeted, and you've admitted these situations may sometimes escalate to full-on assault... and your "solution" is to shame women who respond to it, or otherwise bury your head in the sand. Have you ever considered that responding may be a defense tactic for some women? How many of these women who supposedly were successfully charmed by someone catcalling them actually gave real information out?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Have you ever attempted to convert someone to your point of view? Your presence on these threads seemingly indicates this, unless you're one of those people who boringly states an opinion without expecting to debate over it. You're really argumentative for someone who apparently believes people can't be persuaded. I can confidently state that there are men out there willing to have this talk with people they know, because I am dear friends with some of them. Not all catcallers fit the "thug" archetype; there are plenty who are otherwise well-adjusted. It's an ubiquitous phenomenon.


It won't get rid of all of them.  There will always be that little subsection of society who doesn't do culturally accepted things.  This is common sense.  And who knows why I argue?  Why do any of us argue?  I just enjoy debating and maybe part of it is that I just feel so hopelessly surrounded by faulty reasoning that I feel the need to say something no matter what effect it might have.  That's what most of us do.  That doesn't mean I do it all the time, but this is one issue in which I see a particularly large amount of bull$#@! being spread.  I'm sorry if it offends you that I'm argumentative, but despite the fact that people seem to think I'm harsh, I've never called anyone a name for disagreeing with me, with very few exceptions a long time ago.  I'm really not a bad guy, I promise.




> You've admitted men are often threatened with violence for coming to the defense of someone who is targeted, and you've admitted these situations may sometimes escalate to full-on assault... and your "solution" is to shame women who respond to it, or otherwise bury your head in the sand. Have you ever considered that responding may be a defense tactic for some women? How many of these women who supposedly were successfully charmed by someone catcalling them actually gave real information out?


It wasn't a defense tactic in the videos I was talking about.  The women were smiling and giggling and hand him their number through a car window on the street.  The point is that lots of women don't actually feel harassed by this, depending on the situation.  Granted, this guy was in a nicer neighborhood and was much more well-dressed, but that's kind of the point.  If you're hanging around areas where you feel threatened, then get out of those areas and the same behavior can seem flattering and even friendly.

Also, the fact that this may potentially lead to assault is irrelevant.  There is already something you can do about assault.  There is nothing you can do about idiots being idiots except  complain to non-idiots about them.  What does that do?

----------


## kahless

Looking at it again, it is pretty tame compared to what I have seen. They really could have done a better video.

This is why I support them having their campaign to dial things back a bit for some specific demographics that are more aggressive through their actions and words.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yeah, but would it be the same if some creepy looking skank on the street grabbed you in the crotch and would not leave you alone.


Where'd you meet my ex wife...?  O_o

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't get it.  He just proved you wrong.  Why do you feel it necessary to call him names?


I'm honestly curious myself.

----------


## kahless

> Where'd you meet my ex wife...?  O_o


  LOL.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

I just don't got the moves...

----------


## juleswin

Speaking of things to hold, the ad on this thread reads

"The best thing to hold onto in life is earch(sp) other" with a picture of good looking Chinese women from chinesewomendate.com. The people at google ad are good.

----------


## kahless

> Speaking of things to hold, the ad on this thread reads
> 
> "The best thing to hold onto in life is earch(sp) other" with a picture of good looking Chinese women from chinesewomendate.com. The people at google ad are good.


I get it to and I was thinking it comes up because being a middle aged divorced white guy means I am probably the prime demographic for that scam.

----------


## Spikender

Well, this topic certainly went places while I was gone.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

They do it because it works...with a certain type of girl.

----------


## Suzanimal

> "After a video of a woman experiencing over 100 instances of street harassment during a 10 hour period walking the streets of New York City went viral, Funny Or Die News decided to conduct an experiment to see what happens to a white man walking the streets of NYC."
> http://www.funnyordie.com/articles/eb...

----------


## specsaregood

> 


Ok, I don't usually laugh at their videos, but that one was funny.

----------


## jonhowe

> Then that is a cost-benefit decision that you have made... accepting bad behavior from others because you like your job more than dislike the bad behavior.


Yes, so? 

That doesn't have any bearing on the discussion over if this behavior is ok, and if not (and clearly it is not ok), how we fix it.

----------


## jonhowe

> Take it easy man, what you see is people participating in the mating dance.


Maybe at one point in the Olden Days this was a mating dance. It is not anymore. It is outright harassment 99.9% of the time. Here is a quote from my (very attractive and not at all 'skanky') friend Nicole on her daily walk to the train: "I have literally only a 10min walk every morning (at 7 30am) and get cat called or creeped on at least 5 times during that short walk, most times more. And that's just going to work in the morning, not even the rest of the day."

She lives in Chelsea, certainly not considered a "bad neighborhood". I've been with her when it's happened, too. She is quite petite and it gives a lot of guys a feeling they can really get away with anything. She's had men attempt to feel her up on the sidewalk in the middle of the day and passers by do nothing. Just this week (monday morning) she was asked if she would "sit on a guys face". NOT a mating dance.





> This doesn't even take into account the fact that there was only 90 seconds of footage and many of the things people said weren't that bad, not to mention the fact that she was walking in bad neighborhoods to begin with.  
> 
> What's the point of making videos about this?


For people like you who clearly don't get that this is a big deal. Clearly it didn't work, but then, I never had much hope.
The rest of us will take this as a jumping off point to talk with friends/neighbors/community members  to help reduce the frequency of this crap.

For the majority of the video, FWIW, she was not walking in bad neighborhoods. There are very few "bad neighborhoods" left in Manhattan (East/Spanish Harlem, for example).




> Alpha $#@!s/Beta Bucks.  Of course a hot, young stud who lives with his parents isn't good long-term relationship.  She may marry or have a long-term relationship with the man who can better provide for her, but she probably did things to the stud that she wouldn't do with her own husband (even though he craves those things).  This is where you get situations where a woman will talk about how she used to have threesomes, or perform certain sexual acts, but won't with her husband (whom she presumably loves above all others) because "she's not like that anymore."  LOL - that's not the real reason.  The real reason is that her sweet husband and loving father to her children does not invoke the same fires within her that she had experienced when she rode the cock carousel in her youth.


You must know a lot of unpleasant people.




> Sure, it may be a dickish thing to do, but who is it hurting, honestly?  If someone commits violence against a woman, they deserve the fullest justice under the law, but not until then.  How does anyone propose we change this?  There will always be weirdos on the street and no amount of social engineering is going to fix that.  
> 
> Seriously, who has an idea for how we stop thugs from cat-calling?  What does it help to even bring attention to this issue?


It isn't hurting you, that's quite clear. So therefore... we should do nothing, apparently?

Stop implying that anyone on the other side of the issue is calling for "social engineering".

Your very last line is so telling because you put the question after the answer! What does it help to bring attention to the issue? That's the idea for how we stop thugs from cat calling! If decent men everywhere STOP thinking it is acceptable to act aggressively towards women on the sidewalk, and call out their friends/neighbors when it happens.

My neighborhood, near a park, used to be covered with dog crap. Some neighbors and I made signs, put them up, and helped encourage our neighbors to pick up after their dogs. The block is now significantly less poop covered, after only 6 months.

----------


## jonhowe

> Really, what is your issue?
> 
> Are you denying that men are the victims of violent crime more often than women?


I think the word "victim" there might be misplaced. The same stats that give your numbers also show that over 90% of ALL drug related crime is perpetrated on and by men, and that 94% of gang crime is perpetrated on and by men. Meanwhile, 80+% of sex crimes resulting in murder are perpetrated on women (the vast majority by men). You also need to take into account that women are significantly less likely to commit a crime.

In short, most crime is male on male. The second most likely is male on female. Crimes committed by a woman are a vast minority.




So sure, your stat is correct (as I knew, which is why I didn't debate it with you earlier), but it's much more nuanced than you represent.

----------


## tod evans

The mere idea that "we need to fix it" is $#@!ed up from the onset.

If you or I don't like the behavior of others in our periphery it's up to each of us individually to change either our surroundings or our reaction to them.

The idea of ganging together to force others to behave in ways you find acceptable is for thugs and authoritarians.

I know how folks in NY city behave, I won't go there....

----------


## thoughtomator

> I think the word "victim" there might be misplaced. The same stats that give your numbers also show that over 90% of ALL drug related crime is perpetrated on and by men, and that 94% of gang crime is perpetrated on and by men. Meanwhile, 80+% of sex crimes resulting in murder are perpetrated on women (the vast majority by men). You also need to take into account that women are significantly less likely to commit a crime.
> 
> In short, most crime is male on male. The second most likely is male on female. Crimes committed by a woman are a vast minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So sure, your stat is correct (as I knew, which is why I didn't debate it with you earlier), but it's much more nuanced than you represent.


Once you start talking about "drug related crime" we are having a completely different conversation. Making something against the law may make it legally a crime, but morally the real crime is being perpetrated against the person arrested and charged for it. Which, as you noticed, is directed 90% towards men. These belong in the "crimes against men" and not the "crimes perpetrated by men" category, in my book.

Also the "sex crimes resulting in murder" category is oddly specific. Why are you discounting sex crimes that don't result in murder, and murders that aren't sex-crime related? And when you're talking sex crimes, are we talking actual sex crimes of political-correctness-generated sex crimes?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Yes, so? 
> 
> That doesn't have any bearing on the discussion over if this behavior is ok, and if not (and clearly it is not ok), how we fix it.


Most of it is the result of bad parenting... not much that can be done about that

----------


## jonhowe

> Once you start talking about "drug related crime" we are having a completely different conversation. Making something against the law may make it legally a crime, but morally the real crime is being perpetrated against the person arrested and charged for it. Which, as you noticed, is directed 90% towards men. These belong in the "crimes against men" and not the "crimes perpetrated by men" category, in my book.
> 
> Also the "sex crimes resulting in murder" category is oddly specific. Why are you discounting sex crimes that don't result in murder, and murders that aren't sex-crime related? And when you're talking sex crimes, are we talking actual sex crimes of political-correctness-generated sex crimes?


Because the stats that were first in the folder on my desktop were for Homicides. It broke them down into drug related (as in, during the sale or use of drugs), gang related, or sex related (as in before or after a rape) homicides. My point was smaller; men commit most violent crimes against men, so the stats given by AF are not as simple as they first seem. Neither are the stats I pulled up, as you thoughtfully pointed out!





> The mere idea that "we need to fix it" is $#@!ed up from the onset.
> 
> If you or I don't like the behavior of others in our periphery it's up to each of us individually to change either our surroundings or our reaction to them.
> 
> The idea of ganging together to force others to behave in ways you find acceptable is for thugs and authoritarians.
> 
> I know how folks in NY city behave, I won't go there....



Phew!

I am attempting to change my surroundings. If you don't live here, or don't want to take part in helping change them, feel free not to visit. Not sure why a comment was needed, but that never stopped me either 





> You think shaming is going to stop thugs from being thugs?


Yes. I've seen it work many times. 




> It really, truly does work sometimes.  I hadn't even thought of that before, but it's true.  If you want cat-calling to stop, then shame the women who encourage this behavior by responding to it.


I'm for this as well. Just remember that sometimes women are doing this simply to get the guy to leave her alone. IE, fake number. Nicole, who I mentioned earlier, has one memorized that sounds real, for example.





> Open your eyes.  Oppression Olympics is exactly what this video is.  It's a competition in the Oppression Olympics.  It's obvious.


Wanting people not to act like $#@!s is not oppression. Where do you get that idea from?

----------


## kahless

> The mere idea that "we need to fix it" is $#@!ed up from the onset.
> 
> If you or I don't like the behavior of others in our periphery it's up to each of us individually to change either our surroundings or our reaction to them.
> 
> The idea of ganging together to force others to behave in ways you find acceptable is for thugs and authoritarians.
> 
> I know how folks in NY city behave, I won't go there....


You will not have to go to NYC since with the demographic and cultural change in this country it is coming to you.  You won't be able to get away from with it. 

You have not heard the complaints from loved ones nor experienced it yourself while with a loved one.  Be prepared to defend yourself, your daughter, girlfriend, mother, sister, or Aunt some day if you ever have to walk with them in public with these animals on the street.

----------


## CaptUSA

> You have not witnessed a loved one experience it nor experienced it yourself while with a loved one.  Be prepared to defend yourself, your daughter, girlfriend, mother, sister, or Aunt some day if you ever have to walk with them in public with these animals on the street.


You can't walk through a jungle without being prepared to run into some snakes.

----------


## Suzanimal

> You will not have to go to NYC since with the demographic and cultural change in this country it is coming to you.  You won't be able to get away from with it. 
> 
> *You have not witnessed a loved one experience it nor experienced it yourself while with a loved one.  Be prepared to defend yourself, your daughter, girlfriend, mother, sister, or Aunt some day if you ever have to walk with them in public with these animals on the street.*


I've never been catcalled while in the company of a man.

----------


## kahless

> You can't walk through a jungle without being prepared to run into some snakes.


The worst experiences I have heard about or witnessed were not in the jungle.  Animals sometimes wander out the jungle in packs or you run into a rabid one.

----------


## kahless

> I've never been catcalled while in the company of a man.


The issue is not simply cat-calling such as whistling or saying something nice from a far.  It is men or groups of men that get overly aggressive or threatening that goes beyond cat-calling. 

The worst part of that video is the dude that followed her for 5 minutes.  There are worse stories to be told as described by others in this thread.

----------


## FloralScent

> It's not about sex. It's about chest thumping.


Nope, guy here, it's about sex.

----------


## tod evans

> You will not have to go to NYC since with the demographic and cultural change in this country it is coming to you.  You won't be able to get away from with it. 
> 
> You have not heard the complaints from loved ones nor experienced it yourself while with a loved one.  Be prepared to defend yourself, your daughter, girlfriend, mother, sister, or Aunt some day if you ever have to walk with them in public with these animals on the street.


Ever been to the Ozarks?

The likelihood of such behavior transpiring here is pretty slim..

I know that I personally have no problem at all risking a prison sentence to stand up for my family in such a way that others will question such behavior in the future even if I'm gone....

----------


## tod evans

> Phew!
> 
> I am attempting to change my surroundings. If you don't live here, or don't want to take part in helping change them, feel free not to visit. Not sure why a comment was needed, but that never stopped me either


Are you mistaking trying to change others behavior with changing your surroundings?

If you're living in a $#@!hole it's okay to try and clean it up until you try to throw the $#@! into my yard..

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> For people like you who clearly don't get that this is a big deal. Clearly it didn't work, but then, I never had much hope.
> The rest of us will take this as a jumping off point to talk with friends/neighbors/community members  to help reduce the frequency of this crap.


There have always been and always will be people that don't care.  That's why we still have criminals today.  Don't you think your time would be better spent trying to eliminate murder and rape through community influence?  When are you going to realize that people who do trashy things do those things because they just don't care about your influence and they're not part of your community?  Why do you think the negative view toward crime in general hasn't stopped it yet?  Why do you think the fact that society looks down on drug use hasn't eliminated drugs?  It's because certain people just don't care. 

What's more, this is not a "big deal" to anyone.  Assault is a big deal.  Stalking is a big deal.  This is NOT a big deal.  And despite the fact that those may not have been bad neighborhoods, notice the people who were doing it weren't particularly well-kept in a general sense.  These are the types of people who aren't going to care if you tell your friends (who probably don't do it anyway) that this should stop.  




> It isn't hurting you, that's quite clear. So therefore... we should do nothing, apparently?


This isn't hurting anyone.  What happened to the old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?  Trying to change the behavior of a million other people is pointless when you can change your reaction to it and achieve the same result.  I may not be a woman, but I don't have to be one in order to be able to tell that this is not hurting her.  Not caring about what people say would be just as effective as going on a massive campaign to stop $#@!s from be $#@!s.  




> Stop implying that anyone on the other side of the issue is calling for "social engineering".


Let me define social engineering in the context of how I'm using it.  When I say social engineering, I mean going on a massive witch-hunt and trying to stop people from being the way they are when you could just as easily achieve the same result by not caring about them.  Unless some guy attacks a woman, I'm not concerned that he shouted a compliment at her.  Social engineering is the idea that, for some reason, we need to change that.  We really don't.  Sure, if one of my friends did that, I would tell them it's not cool, but none of my friends do that, so I'm not going to waste precious time and resources on trying to stop it.  Surely you must see how little chance there is that any one of us is going to have an impact on this behavior.  




> Your very last line is so telling because you put the question after the answer! What does it help to bring attention to the issue? That's the idea for how we stop thugs from cat calling! If decent men everywhere STOP thinking it is acceptable to act aggressively towards women on the sidewalk, and call out their friends/neighbors when it happens.


That's just the thing, though: decent men already know this.  The people who do it are not decent.  So trying to foster this awareness among decent individuals is not going to achieve anything.  I put the question last because it was rhetorical.




> My neighborhood, near a park, used to be covered with dog crap. Some neighbors and I made signs, put them up, and helped encourage our neighbors to pick up after their dogs. The block is now significantly less poop covered, after only 6 months.


That's great.  But it's also a lot different.  Decent people walk their dogs.  Decent people heed the advice of other decent people.  Decent people also see the benefit to them if they stop this behavior.  The signs were just an acknowledgement of what they already knew to be true: that they don't like poop-covered sidewalks.  Idiots who catcall already know that people like you think it's not cool, but they do it anyway.  Big shocker!

----------


## presence

> The worst part of that video is *the dude that followed her for 5 minutes.*  There are worse stories to be told as described by others in this thread.


Bull$#@!.  Did she say, "quit $#@!ing following me $#@!"  "is there a reason you're followin me?"  "you're kinda being creepy dude, could you knock that $#@! off?" Did she try to get away?  Did she ask him if he needed anything?   ...or did she quietly consent, and embolden him, by queitly walking along with him just to prove a point.  

SHE *WANTED* HIM TO KEEP WALKING NEXT TO HER SO SHE COULD SAY

>>> _"LOOK THIS GUY FOLLOWED ME FOR 5 WHOLE MINUTES"_



He felt that... he didn't know why she didn't do anything to fend him off... but he felt welcome.


*
If Magdalene doesn't want cat callers 
she needs to put down the orange blossom, 
give up the vanity mirror 
and listen to Martha.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_...8Caravaggio%29



Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio - Martha and Mary Magdalene 1589


The Conversion of the Magdalene - Bernardino Luini, 1520


Else we need some kommiefornia "affirmative consent" form to walk next to one another on the street.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Most of it is the result of bad parenting... not much that can be done about that


Very true.  A lot of it (most of it) goes back to things we have no control over.  Moreover, why is it so urgent to stop?  

It's a very simple cost-benefit analysis.  First of all, how bad do we want this?  How important is it that we stop cat-calling?  Well, considering that other, much more serious crimes actually do hurt women, I would say it's not very important.  Secondly, how much work do we have to do to stop it?  A LOT.  The people that do this are not in our immediate circle, so it would take a dramatic and concentrated effort to actually have an effect, and even that is unlikely to completely eliminate it.  You can go organize meet-ups and spend money and time trying to solve a problem that isn't that big to begin with, but I'm going to be a realist and say people just need to get over it and stop treating it like such a big deal.  It's people talking on the street, for crying out loud.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Bull$#@!.  Did she say, "quit $#@!ing following me $#@!"  "is there a reason you're followin me?"  "you're kinda being creepy dude, could you knock that $#@! off?" Did she try to get away?  Did she ask him if he needed anything?   ...or did she quietly consent by walking along with him just to prove a point.  
> 
> SHE *WANTED* HIM TO KEEP WALKING NEXT TO HER SO SHE COULD SAY
> 
> >>> _"LOOK THIS GUY FOLLOWED ME FOR 5 WHOLE MINUTES"_
> 
> He felt that... he didn't know why she didn't do anything to fend him off... but he felt welcome.
> 
> 
> Do we need some kommiefornia "affirmative consent" form to walk next to one another now on the street?


Never thought I'd see the day when a libertarian invoked the doctrine of tacit or implied consent. Well, actually it isn't too much of a surprise considering how hypocritical libertarians can be on these issues.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes. I've seen it work many times.


I'm not sure what universe you're living in, but whatever you saw, I assure you that there are still plenty of thugs.  Always have been, always will be.  If you're looking for perfection, it's just not going to happen.




> I'm for this as well. Just remember that sometimes women are doing this simply to get the guy to leave her alone. IE, fake number. Nicole, who I mentioned earlier, has one memorized that sounds real, for example.


Yes, I'm aware that that happens, but shockingly enough, there are women who genuinely respond to it and are flattered by it.  I've seen it.




> Wanting people not to act like $#@!s is not oppression. Where do you get that idea from?


I wasn't implying that.  The idea of this video is pretending that there's this large-scale oppression on women perpetrated by men.  They're trying to evoke an emotional response to their "situation" because women are sooooo oppressed.  That's what Oppression Olympics means.

----------


## kahless

> Bull$#@!.  Did she say, "quit $#@!ing following me $#@!"  "is there a reason you're followin me?"  "you're kinda being creepy dude, could you knock that $#@! off?" Did she try to get away?  Did she ask him if he needed anything?   ...or did she quietly consent, and embolden him, by queitly walking along with him just to prove a point.  
> 
> SHE *WANTED* HIM TO KEEP WALKING NEXT TO HER SO SHE COULD SAY
> 
> >>> _"LOOK THIS GUY FOLLOWED ME FOR 5 WHOLE MINUTES"_
> 
> 
> 
> He felt that... he didn't know why she didn't do anything to fend him off... but he felt welcome.


The video is an example to make a point.  There are plenty of examples where a woman has done what you described and they block her way or get overly aggressive. No harm in a campaign for civility and decorum.

Does not say allot about the men in today's culture that have no issue with scaring the crap out of women with this kind of behavior.

----------


## TheTexan

Just make it illegal?  It's the simplest and most obvious solution.  Its not that hard!

Education isn't gonna work, and you dont want to pack up your $#@! to go somewhere this doesnt happen as much, and you sure as $#@! dont want to quit bitching and just deal with it, ... only the simplest and easiest solution remains.

You guys are really overthinking this.

----------


## jonhowe

> There have always been and always will be people that don't care.  That's why we still have criminals today.  Don't you think your time would be better spent trying to eliminate murder and rape through community influence?  When are you going to realize that people who do trashy things do those things because they just don't care about your influence and they're not part of your community?  Why do you think the negative view toward crime in general hasn't stopped it yet?  Why do you think the fact that society looks down on drug use hasn't eliminated drugs?  It's because certain people just don't care.


Agreed. Certain people don't care. There are always going to be criminals (and I mean that in the moral sense of the term). Those criminals will likely continue to catcall. But if we can get all the people who do this who simply havent thought about it, or who think their friends think it's cool, or who think that women LIKE it, to see how bad it can be, and to understand it's not acceptable behavior, we can get a lot done. I'm not looking to eliminate cat calling (again, you are implying some mission or vendetta or proposed legislation into my posts when there is none) just like I'm not looking to eliminate people who support, say, the federal reserve. We both know there will always be idiots around.





> What's more, this is not a "big deal" to anyone.  Assault is a big deal.  Stalking is a big deal.  This is NOT a big deal.  And despite the fact that those may not have been bad neighborhoods, notice the people who were doing it weren't particularly well-kept in a general sense.  These are the types of people who aren't going to care if you tell your friends (who probably don't do it anyway) that this should stop.


It is not a big deal to YOU. Please get that straight. It is a big deal to me, and to many of the people I live with, near, and around. Clearly this never happens in WV and nothing needs to be done about it there; good. You can now stop posting in this thread and stop all murder. Oh wait, that's impossible to do too, so I guess  murder is fine!






> This isn't hurting anyone.


It is. It isn't hurting you; you've made that clear. You still seem to see a distinction between "yourself" and "anyone else".




> What happened to the old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?


First of all, what do you think the guy who followed her for 5 minutes was thinking? 

Words might never hurt you. But you've never had a person who literally weighs 2-3x what you do tell you they want to rape you in an alley and then follow you home. My friend may have made it home without injury, but if you think that kind of behavior is acceptable (not by law, but by society) you just don't get it.





> Let me define social engineering in the context of how I'm using it.  When I say social engineering, I mean going on a massive witch-hunt and trying to stop people from being the way they are when you could just as easily achieve the same result by not caring about them.  Unless some guy attacks a woman, I'm not concerned that he shouted a compliment at her.  Social engineering is the idea that, for some reason, we need to change that.  We really don't.  Sure, if one of my friends did that, I would tell them it's not cool, but none of my friends do that, so I'm not going to waste precious time and resources on trying to stop it.  Surely you must see how little chance there is that any one of us is going to have an impact on this behavior.


It's not a problem in your community so you don't see a need to change it. This has been made clear. You are "not concerned", so I'm not sure why you're in this thread?






> That's just the thing, though: decent men already know this.  The people who do it are not decent.  So trying to foster this awareness among decent individuals is not going to achieve anything.  I put the question last because it was rhetorical.


Decent men know this is wrong because they have empathy and understanding of how it must feel. This video is for those men who have never thought about it from a woman's point of view; it's something many people have trouble doing on their own. The fact that you are calling these 'compliments' shows that you do NOT understand the issue and perfectly illustrates my point.





> That's great.  But it's also a lot different.  Decent people walk their dogs.  Decent people heed the advice of other decent people.  Decent people also see the benefit to them if they stop this behavior.  The signs were just an acknowledgement of what they already knew to be true: that they don't like poop-covered sidewalks.  Idiots who catcall already know that people like you think it's not cool, but they do it anyway.  Big shocker!


Again, you're assuming the callers have all thought this through extensively before they act. You're giving most people too much credit. Most men just aren't paying attention to this issue, so it ISN'T an issue to them. Videos like this show how uncomfortable and scary these guys can get from a woman's point of view; something many men simply lack.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Bull$#@!.  Did she say, "quit $#@!ing following me $#@!"  "is there a reason you're followin me?"  "you're kinda being creepy dude, could you knock that $#@! off?" Did she try to get away?  Did she ask him if he needed anything?   ...or did she quietly consent, and embolden him, by queitly walking along with him just to prove a point.  
> 
> SHE *WANTED* HIM TO KEEP WALKING NEXT TO HER SO SHE COULD SAY
> 
> >>> _"LOOK THIS GUY FOLLOWED ME FOR 5 WHOLE MINUTES"_
> 
> 
> 
> He felt that... he didn't know why she didn't do anything to fend him off... but he felt welcome.
> ...


This.  It's not stalking unless you let the person know that you're not comfortable.  After that, it's stalking.  If he were trying to be aggressive, he wouldn't have been so open about it.  He was literally right next to her... not behind her, not acting inconspicuous or secretive.  Just walking with her in plain view, probably just to be seen with her.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Never thought I'd see the day when a libertarian invoked the doctrine of tacit or implied consent. Well, actually it isn't too much of a surprise considering how hypocritical libertarians can be on these issues.


Never thought I'd see the day when a libertarian implied that a man needs consent to walk down the street...

----------


## jonhowe

> Bull$#@!.  Did she say, "quit $#@!ing following me $#@!"  "is there a reason you're followin me?"  "you're kinda being creepy dude, could you knock that $#@! off?" Did she try to get away?  Did she ask him if he needed anything?   ...or did she quietly consent, and embolden him, by queitly walking along with him just to prove a point.  
> 
> SHE *WANTED* HIM TO KEEP WALKING NEXT TO HER SO SHE COULD SAY
> 
> >>> _"LOOK THIS GUY FOLLOWED ME FOR 5 WHOLE MINUTES"_
> 
> 
> 
> He felt that... he didn't know why she didn't do anything to fend him off... but he felt welcome.


Disgusting post.


Come to NYC, see how often this happens. IT IS NEVER WANTED.





This place gets crazier and crazier every time something about women is posted, I swear. THIS IS WHY THE MOVEMENT IS A VAST MAJORITY MALE!

----------


## kahless

> Ever been to the Ozarks?
> 
> The likelihood of such behavior transpiring here is pretty slim..
> 
> I know that I personally have no problem at all risking a prison sentence to stand up for my family in such a way that others will question such behavior in the future even if I'm gone....


Funny, I spent allot of time researching different areas of the Ozarks as a consideration to relocate to for homesteading.  

I think the Progressive news media and entertainment culture (hip-hop ghetto culture, women degraded and objectified as bitches and hoes) has contributed as some form of social engineering that contributed to the problems with the under 30 demographic groups I described including reverse racism.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The video is an example to make a point.  There are plenty of examples where a woman has done what you described and they block her way or get overly aggressive. No harm in a campaign for civility and decorum.
> 
> Does not say allot about the men in today's culture that have no issue with scaring the crap out of women with this kind of behavior.


Ok, but let's differentiate between aggression and cat-calling.  They are not the same thing.  If people block you or get aggressive, then it's threatening and dangerous and if they touch you, it's assault, but not until them.  It's really important to differentiate between the two and not make the issue convoluted by acting as if talking and walking down the street is just a pre-cursor to assault.

----------


## kahless

> Ok, but let's differentiate between aggression and cat-calling.  They are not the same thing.  If people block you or get aggressive, then it's threatening and dangerous and if they touch you, it's assault, but not until them.  It's really important to differentiate between the two and not make the issue convoluted by acting as if talking and walking down the street is just a pre-cursor to assault.


Like I said earlier much of the video is tame. They could have done better.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Never thought I'd see the day when a libertarian invoked the doctrine of tacit or implied consent. Well, actually it isn't too much of a surprise considering how hypocritical libertarians can be on these issues.


I wouldn't argue implied consent, but I would argue that what the video shows is never how it would go down in the real world. As I described above, when in a city you should be situationally aware and take evasive action if you perceive a potential threat. This is pretty instinctual stuff, so in order to produce that example she had to behave in a way that wouldn't actually happen in a real-world scenario. She had several options for dealing with a bothersome person and _chose_ to take none of them.

In a real-world scenario that encounter ends in 15-30 seconds as she either slows down, speeds up, changes her path, walks into a store, tells him to pike off, or some combination of the above. It only lasted 5 minutes because she chose to bait a socially inept ghetto kid by her premeditated and completely abnormal reaction (showing no signs of rejection nor acceptance of his overture).

So, yes, if a person wants to walk around in a personal bubble and not interact with the people around her, the heart of the most densely populated city in North America might be uncomfortable.

When I felt that way about the city, I chose to leave for a place where the nature of the environment wouldn't force me to interact with kinds of people I didn't want to interact with (low class ones who exhibit no sign of civility). The simplest solution to her problem, and the only realistic one, is for her to move out. _All_ of the implied alternate solutions are monstrous and tyrannical.

The video stands as the product of people who hate men and purposely baited the behavior they hated most so as to generate artificial offense and claim victimhood status, a platform from which they surely intend to make other, unreasonable demands. If you want a clue as to what those demands might be, look up the "Hollaback!" group, its leader, and the other associations that leader might have. Took me all of 2 minutes to find the source of over-the-top Leftist activism (a "youth health" group whose Twitter feed is exclusively socialist propaganda).

If there's an overarching message that I'm trying to give in dissecting this, it's excepting only the rarest of cases, any media produced for mass consumption is designed first and foremost to influence the opinions of the audience, and that to properly understand it one must understand the underlying motivation in its creation. In rare cases these will genuinely be positive motivations, but for the most part they are self-interested ones, and uninterested in the well-being of the target audience.

----------


## TheTexan

You know what I really hate?  Is women bugging me all the time for computer help just because they know I work in IT.

Make them stop.  I should make a video.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Agreed. Certain people don't care. There are always going to be criminals (and I mean that in the moral sense of the term). Those criminals will likely continue to catcall. But if we can get all the people who do this who simply havent thought about it, or who think their friends think it's cool, or who think that women LIKE it, to see how bad it can be, and to understand it's not acceptable behavior, we can get a lot done. I'm not looking to eliminate cat calling (again, you are implying some mission or vendetta or proposed legislation into my posts when there is none) just like I'm not looking to eliminate people who support, say, the federal reserve. We both know there will always be idiots around.


I really wasn't implying such a thing.  Sorry if I was, but it seems to me that you think more action is needed.  Society already generally looks down on cat-calling and decent people will discourage their friends from partaking in that activity.  What do you think should be done?  Advertising?  Meet-ups?  Confronting people on the street?  What should we do that most people don't already do?  If you want to do all those things and spend your money on a bunch of advertising for it, then go ahead.  I don't see the point because, it's just not that big of a deal.  It's a cost-benefit analysis just like anything else, and people who are passionate about it should realize that it's not everyone else's duty to join them.  They can reach out and encourage change all they want, but calling out and shaming "society" for the behavior of a few thugs is pointless.  





> It is not a big deal to YOU. Please get that straight. It is a big deal to me, and to many of the people I live with, near, and around. Clearly this never happens in WV and nothing needs to be done about it there; good. You can now stop posting in this thread and stop all murder. Oh wait, that's impossible to do too, so I guess  murder is fine!


No, I never implied that, but why don't you pay more attention to that last sentence there?  It's *impossible* to do, really?  So, if it's so impossible to stop murder, which is a MUCH more serious issue, then how do you expect to stop cat-calling, which is not an aggressive behavior in the first place?




> It is. It isn't hurting you; you've made that clear. You still seem to see a distinction between "yourself" and "anyone else".


When I say "not hurting anyone", I mean that literally.  What harm does this do to the person's body?  If you want to say that it hurts them on an emotional level, well then you're just getting into the metaphysical and psychological aspects of it.  In that case, I will always maintain that people can control their reactions better than they can control the behaviors of other people.  Words only hurt you if you let them.




> First of all, what do you think the guy who followed her for 5 minutes was thinking?


Probably wondering how long he could keep walking there without her saying anything.




> Words might never hurt you. But you've never had a person who literally weighs 2-3x what you do tell you they want to rape you in an alley and then follow you home. My friend may have made it home without injury, but if you think that kind of behavior is acceptable (not by law, but by society) you just don't get it.


Cat-calling is not threats.  Let's make the distinction between clearly aggressive behavior and regular cat-calling.  Most of it is not aggressive.  If the woman would have said something to the guy who was following her and he kept doing it, then it would have been aggressive.  Not until then, though.




> It's not a problem in your community so you don't see a need to change it. This has been made clear. You are "not concerned", so I'm not sure why you're in this thread?


Because the whole point of this video is to get me to do something about it, to make me feel like I'm responsible for allowing this to happen.  When they made that  video, the obvious implication was that all men are responsible for this type of behavior and that women are oppressed by it.  I reject that responsibility.  This is not my fault and I have no obligation to stop it, nor does anyone else.  There are FAR bigger problems in the world than this.




> Decent men know this is wrong because they have empathy and understanding of how it must feel. This video is for those men who have never thought about it from a woman's point of view; it's something many people have trouble doing on their own. The fact that you are calling these 'compliments' shows that you do NOT understand the issue and perfectly illustrates my point.


Many of them were compliments, but they were still lumped in as "harassment."  It's an obvious propaganda piece that leaves out certain things in order to force the point.




> Again, you're assuming the callers have all thought this through extensively before they act. You're giving most people too much credit. Most men just aren't paying attention to this issue, so it ISN'T an issue to them. Videos like this show how uncomfortable and scary these guys can get from a woman's point of view; something many men simply lack.


I'm not so sure about that.  What makes you think cat-callers aren't aware of this?  Next you're going to tell me that druggies just aren't aware that society disapproves of their behavior.

Also, this behavior may look scary in the video, but that's because the woman did nothing to prevent it.  Any normal woman who felt uncomfortable would have said something, but she purposefully didn't.  What does that say?  She wanted to show something that wouldn't have normally happened under normal circumstances.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Like I said earlier much of the video is tame. They could have done better.


And by "done better", you mean, "shown more violence/creepy behavior."

Well... they walked around for 10 hours and this is what they got.  It's tame because the reality is tame, but they're trying to act like it's not.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Never thought I'd see the day when a libertarian implied that a man needs consent to walk down the street...


You really need to be more careful when reading. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of justifying his viewpoint using the same rhetoric statists like to use when discussing consent in the context of the state. It does not logically follow that I support the opposite extreme. The only situation where that would be of any interest is in a world where all roads are privately owned, whether by a single person or a group.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You really need to be more careful when reading. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of justifying his viewpoint using the same rhetoric statists like to use when discussing consent in the context of the state. It does not logically follow that I support the opposite extreme. The only situation where that would be of any interest is in a world where all roads are privately owned, whether by a single person or a group.


No, but that's implying that there was something wrong with what the man did that he needed consent for.  Consent doesn't even enter into the equation because he didn't need consent.  

So... why mention implied consent when no consent is needed, implied or expressed?

----------


## jonhowe

> Probably wondering how long he could keep walking there without her saying anything.




You are choosing to be ignorant when you say things like this. It makes giving a serious reply impossible.

Carry on.

----------


## pessimist

> An Alpha male isn't the same thing as a meathead, chest-thumping jock.



Well, then we have a different perception. I have the image of the ripped dudes in tribal tattoos who walk around in "I do alpha male $#@!" t-shirts, or the frat boy douche smashing beer bottles over his head, or Brock Lesnar.

I've always thought an 'alpha' was a man trying to exert his dominance over weaker men as part of some mating ritual. 





> A man of good looks, confidence, and high status is going to get a more favorable reaction from women than Joe Average


duh! Any man with high status is going to get a more favorable reaction from women than the average Joe. Any good looking guy is going to get a more favorable reaction on first glance. What is your point?




> or the nicest, funniest, smartest, man alive if he acts weak in front of the woman (of course, even Betas get women, but they have to date down).


This is absurd. You are are VASTLY underestimating the power of personality. I am not sure what you mean by "acting weak" but many of these smart, funny dudes have sociopathic wit and charm, who know how to 'turn women on'. I have no idea what you're talking about here.

An ugly, glib, car salesman type well versed in the art of persuasion can get laid pretty much any time he wants to by manipulating and conning dumb women.  Is he alpha?




> Don't listen to what women say; watch what they do. But again, the Alpha isn't supposed to be what you envision it to be.


Yeah, I must have a different view of the "alpha male", but GOOD LOOKS has nothing to do with alpha or beta. There are a $#@! load of pretty boys who don't "do alpha male $#@!" or are even particularly masculine, but they can get laid any time they want because they're "hot".

Wow! Women like hot guys, like men like hot women? Who would have thought?

----------


## chudrockz

> The video is an example to make a point.  There are plenty of examples where a woman has done what you described and they block her way or get overly aggressive. No harm in a campaign for civility and decorum.
> 
> Does not say allot about the men in today's culture that have no issue with scaring the crap out of women with this kind of behavior.


When I was in college and partying frequently, I'd be walking around campus or small town and often there would be a woman walking near me. Since I'm large and (to some, I guess) kind of angry/ scary looking (!), I almost always attempted to converse at least briefly, with something like "hi, how are you tonight? I know I'm a giant, and if I make you nervous I would be happy to walk fifty feet in front of you, or stand still and let you be on your way."  I had no desire to scare anyone. Several times at parties though I DID scare guys who I thought were acting badly toward women.

----------


## jonhowe

> No, but that's implying that there was something wrong with what the man did that he needed consent for.  Consent doesn't even enter into the equation because he didn't need consent.  
> 
> So... why mention implied consent when no consent is needed, implied or expressed?


Again, you're being dense if you think they guy was 'just walking down the street'.

----------


## TheTexan

> You know what I really hate?  Is women bugging me all the time for computer help just because they know I work in IT.
> 
> Make them stop.  I should make a video.


They actually do get kind of aggressive with their begging sometimes.  A couple times they've even broke down in tears.  Made me _really_ uncomfortable.

----------


## chudrockz

And that just totally reminded me of a metal concert I was at once. There was a really cute young girl crowd surfing near me who was also topless. No one really seemed to object. I know I didn't. But there was one guy who was nearby who REPEATEDLY kept reaching up and totally overtly groping her boobs. She was obviously annoyed by it and kept batting his hands down. After about the third or fourth time he did it, I pushed my way over to him and said something very much like "Hey dude, if you don't stop grabbing at her she is going to put her shirt on. If you make her mad enough to put her shirt back on, I'm GOING to stomp your $#@!ing face."  He left.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Again, you're being dense if you think they guy was 'just walking down the street'.


Was he doing something else that I didn't see?  

Again, if she wanted him to stop, she should have said something like any normal woman would.  He was probably curious as to why she wasn't saying anything.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> No, but that's implying that there was something wrong with what the man did that he needed consent for.  Consent doesn't even enter into the equation because he didn't need consent.  
> 
> So... why mention implied consent when no consent is needed, implied or expressed?


presence was the one who brought it up when he implied that because the woman didn't tell the man to knock it off, she was consenting to the behavior (she "wanted" him to keep doing it, using presence's word choice). This is just like when people argue that democracy is legitimate because people implicitly consent to be bound by it when they are born, or the good old "social contract" argument. Basically, lack of response does not imply consent in these contexts.

----------


## TheTexan

> Again, you're being dense if you think they guy was 'just walking down the street'.


The guy was probably just playing a game with her because she was clearly and obviously playing a game with them.

----------


## presence

> The woman holds up a set of scales,  presuming to weigh up life, as if existence is at her dictation. In the  scales, life is measured quantitatively rather than qualitatively, a  false reckoning over innate recognition of its value. The woman stands  "above" the skull, apparently taking precedence over, and neglecting,  the individual's former agency. Amid her sumptuous garb, she reduces the  skull purely to an inanimate object, rather than a relic that once  housed a unique seat of reason and emotion, conscience and insight.  Equally, though, for all the woman's treatment of the skull as a mere  footnote to her beauty, she also portrays it in the most conspicuous and  negative light. She reflects it in the mirror, showing us the skull  from different angles. The woman advertises the fact of death, and does  so with a purse-lipped, almost arrogant sincerity. She presents the  skull as if indicting death, as though mortality were a vice to see  embarrassed, even shamed. 
> 
> 
> The positioning of the skull atop  the folio reduces what was once the place of that faculty which enabled  perception and registered experience to links purely with theory and  hypothesis. The textual may feed the imagination and offer salient  instruction, but, here, the woman, in her colour-rich attire, takes  centre stage while that other "subject" is aligned to the scholarly but  not the pragmatic, the inspirational but not the aesthetic. Vanity  cajoles us into exclusively visual considerations, motioning the eye to  her appearance rather than the curious pathos of that Other "character".


http://wwwsamcaneblogspotcom.blogspo...ases-from.html

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You are choosing to be ignorant when you say things like this. It makes giving a serious reply impossible.
> 
> Carry on.


Oh, right.  I forgot that I was always supposed to assume the worst.

Carry on.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And that just totally reminded me of a metal concert I was at once. There was a really cute young girl crowd surfing near me who was also topless. No one really seemed to object. I know I didn't. But there was one guy who was nearby who REPEATEDLY kept reaching up and totally overtly groping her boobs. She was obviously annoyed by it and kept batting his hands down. After about the third or fourth time he did it, I pushed my way over to him and said something very much like "Hey dude, if you don't stop grabbing at her she is going to put her shirt on. If you make her mad enough to put her shirt back on, I'm GOING to stomp your $#@!ing face."  He left.


You're cool. 

You remind me a lot of my cousin, who is a big, tattooed fellow but the nicest guy you'll ever meet.

----------


## jonhowe

> Was he doing something else that I didn't see?


Clearly.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> http://wwwsamcaneblogspotcom.blogspo...ases-from.html


Please reserve your spammy nonsense for your own topics. I would be more than willing to bet no one here is actually going to read your post. At least you didn't use your obnoxious center-justified format this time.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> presence was the one who brought it up when he implied that because the woman didn't tell the man to knock it off, she was consenting to the behavior (she "wanted" him to keep doing it, using presence's word choice). This is just like when people argue that democracy is legitimate because people implicitly consent to be bound by it when they are born, or the good old "social contract" argument. Basically, lack of response does not imply consent in these contexts.


You're still not getting it.  This is nothing like the implied consent to government oppression.  The man needed no consent whatsoever to walk there, implied or not.  None.  Zero.  Zippo.

The reason presence said that she wanted him to do it was because she made a video about it with an obvious agenda.  I actually came to the same conclusion, believe it or not.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Clearly.


Yes... and?

What was he doing?  Was he thinking bad thoughts?  

I must have missed it because I didn't see it in the video.  Maybe if I look _really_ close, I'll be able to see his thoughts.

----------


## kahless

> And by "done better", you mean, "shown more violence/creepy behavior."
> 
> Well... they walked around for 10 hours and this is what they got.  It's tame because the reality is tame, but they're trying to act like it's not.


I have heard the stories, read the accounts of others here and I have witnessed worse first hand.  Regardless, it really does not matter since you do not need to show the more creepy behavior to achieve your goal.  If you stigmatize the behavior demonstrated in the video it may reduce incidents that escalate from that behavior or worse.

----------


## kahless

> When I was in college and partying frequently, I'd be walking around campus or small town and often there would be a woman walking near me. Since I'm large and (to some, I guess) kind of angry/ scary looking (!), I almost always attempted to converse at least briefly, with something like "hi, how are you tonight? I know I'm a giant, and if I make you nervous I would be happy to walk fifty feet in front of you, or stand still and let you be on your way."  I had no desire to scare anyone. Several times at parties though I DID scare guys who I thought were acting badly toward women.


There really is no comparison to what you describe to the guy who intentionally followed the girl side by side for 5 minutes.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> There really is no comparison to what you describe to the guy who intentionally followed the girl side by side for 5 minutes.


He is completely doing the right thing here though, and should be applauded for that. Personally it puts me at ease when men do that. Even brief eye contact and a smile or nod will do enough to show you aren't a threat. This is exactly the sort of thing people discuss when they discuss what men can do to police themselves and others, for those wondering. So... awesome all around.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I have heard the stories, read the accounts of others here and I have witnessed worse first hand.  Regardless, it really does not matter since you do not need to show the more creepy behavior to achieve your goal.  If you stigmatize the behavior demonstrated in the video it may reduce incidents that escalate from that behavior or worse.


That's all anecdotal.  And I doubt the goal was to stigmatize the behavior.  The behavior is already stigmatized.  They didn't target the demographic that usually does this and reach out to schools to educate kids on this behavior.  They just put it out there to shame men in general for what is inherently a "man problem."

----------


## chudrockz

> There really is no comparison to what you describe to the guy who intentionally followed the girl side by side for 5 minutes.


No, of course there isn't. I'm saying that when I was in college and found myself walking near a lone young woman, I did what I could to make her feel like she was NOT in danger. I did the opposite of the guy in the video, in other words.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> He is completely doing the right thing here though, and should be applauded for that. Personally it puts me at ease when men do that. Even brief eye contact and a smile or nod will do enough to show you aren't a threat. This is exactly the sort of thing people discuss when they discuss what men can do to police themselves and others, for those wondering. So... awesome all around.


I really don't feel the need to go around "policing" other men.  The worst that this guy in the video can be accused of is being impolite and socially awkward.

----------


## presence

> Please reserve your spammy nonsense for your own topics.  At least you didn't use your obnoxious center-justified format this time.


I'll tie it together as it seems the commentary to *An Allegory of Vanity, Showing Truth Personified* was misunderstood the first time through:

_The skull is the cat caller.
The mirror is the video production.
The folio is the video transcription.
The sumptious garb is the skin tight black clothing.
The scales are the number of times in a day she was called.
Death is the whistling mating call.
Vanity cajoled 'Hollaback' to miss the curious pathos of the other character._





> I would be more than willing to bet no one here is actually going to read your post.


I'll take that bet.

----------


## jmdrake

I haven't watched the video and don't plan on it.  I'll assume the worst and guess that these guys did everything short of grabbing on the woman.  Question for all of the women angry at their behavior.  What's your solution?  I assume, without reading the entire thread, that nobody's for some new sexual harassment law that applies to complete strangers walking on the street.  So is it "talk about it so men feel really really bad and never try this in real life?  Well guess what?  The vast majority of men aren't going to do this.  In fact if you are very attractive (I wouldn't put this actress in the very attractive category), most decent men aren't going to hit on you even if you *want* them to, and even if the situation is "appropriate".  And why do some guys persist in trying?  The same reason Nigerians send out scam emails and why politicians do robocalls.  Because as irritating as it may be, it works enough of the time for guys to decide it's worth it.

As a man, I've been hit on a handful of times.  Twice by gay men (irritating but I didn't freak out about it) and several times by women.  Speaking for the men of the world, women if you see what you like feel free to hit on us.  It will make our jobs easier.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> That's all anecdotal.  And I doubt the goal was to stigmatize the behavior.  The behavior is already stigmatized.  They didn't target the demographic that usually does this and reach out to schools to educate kids on this behavior.  They just put it out there to shame men in general for what is inherently a "man problem."


Go ahead, keep confirming that you are obtuse - the jury's still out on whether you are deliberately so or if you can't help it, though. The most stunning thing is that your own defensive behavior perfectly illustrates the need to have a chat as a society about this issue... like what you so enthusiastically applauded chudrocks for doing. So reading your posts, any reasonable person is left scratching his/her head. It is a problem that as jonhowe and chud illustrated, is capable of being vastly improved if not completely solved. I am confident that neither of these two men, or many of the other men on this topic with sympathetic attitudes, take umbrage to the suggestion that attitudes toward this need to change. 

Men who are unsympathetic or hostile to women's concerns are being "shamed" because there are already many awesome ones that understand why this is unacceptable. So if you aren't willing to muster the effort to be a decent person, (you are not despite your claims) kindly move on.

----------


## kahless

> No, of course there isn't. I'm saying that when I was in college and found myself walking near a lone young woman, I did what I could to make her feel like she was NOT in danger. I did the opposite of the guy in the video, in other words.


+1




> He is completely doing the right thing here though, and should be applauded for that. Personally it puts me at ease when men do that. Even brief eye contact and a smile or nod will do enough to show you aren't a threat. This is exactly the sort of thing people discuss when they discuss what men can do to police themselves and others, for those wondering. So... awesome all around.


I agree.

----------


## specsaregood

> I haven't watched the video and don't plan on it.  I'll assume the worst and guess that these guys did everything short of grabbing on the woman.


you should watch it then.  It is only 2 minutes long and seriousy isn't even close to what one would assume is the worst.  The vast majority of them are just greeting her and saying the equivalent of hello.

----------


## jmdrake

> 


LOL.  As a black man living in Tennessee right after Obama got elected I had white people coming up to me and giving me high fives and saying "We did it!"  Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

----------


## jmdrake

> He is completely doing the right thing here though, and should be applauded for that. Personally it puts me at ease when men do that. Even brief eye contact and a smile or nod will do enough to show you aren't a threat. This is exactly the sort of thing people discuss when they discuss what men can do to police themselves and others, for those wondering. So... awesome all around.


Hmmmm.....the woman in the video in the OP complained about "winks and smiles".  So it seems she would have seen chudrockz as a threat even for doing that.  I think that's the problem with some of these "stop sexual harassment/assault" campaigns.  They lump everything together.

----------


## jmdrake

> you should watch it then.  It is only 2 minutes long and seriousy isn't even close to what one would assume is the worst.  The vast majority of them are just greeting her and saying the equivalent of hello.


Okay.  Watched it.  Yeah, some of what she noted as "harassment" couldn't be honestly called that.  But maybe it's a New York thing.  I live in the south and people here often acknowledge strangers with small talk as they pass each other on the sidewalk.  If every time some stranger says "Good evening" that's a "cat call" then I've been hit on much more than I realize.

----------


## dannno

> Because as irritating as it may be, it works enough of the time for guys to decide it's worth it.


Yep, as I said before it's not really my style but it does work for guys sometimes so some women do in fact like it and I think it is really mean and shallow to judge these guys.. They're basically saying that they are less visually appealing and so there is no way that their personality will ever be able to make up for that fact and no beautiful woman will ever find beauty in their souls so they should just mind their own business rather than let their personalities shine through.

Some women like guys who are outgoing and flatter them. If you don't like it, then say or at least show you aren't interested.. to let the guy just walk next to you for 5 minutes and smile the whole time then complain about it is dumb.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Hmmmm.....the woman in the video in the OP complained about "winks and smiles".  So it seems she would have seen chudrockz as a threat even for doing that.  I think that's the problem with some of these "stop sexual harassment/assault" campaigns.  They lump everything together.


I personally did not watch the video and do not plan on doing so because I am generally skeptical of things that go viral. However, I am still prepared to counter the poor arguments and callous disregard for fellow humans that inevitably spring up on topics like this one. I see the video as a good thing in that it spurs the conversation about these issues. Re: your actual point, some smiles do come off as lecherous rather than friendly; the same goes for winks, and I don't think it's nitpicky or an overreaction  at all to mention that there is some nuance involved with both.




> Yep, as I said before it's not really my style but it does work for guys sometimes so some women do in fact like it and I think it is really mean and shallow to judge these guys.. They're basically saying that they are less visually appealing and so there is no way that their personality will ever be able to make up for that fact and no beautiful woman will ever find beauty in their souls so they should just mind their own business rather than let their personalities shine through.
> 
> Some women like guys who are outgoing and flatter them. If you don't like it, then say or at least show you aren't interested.. to let the guy just walk next to you for 5 minutes and smile the whole time then complain about it is dumb.


Again, you can't just assume that women like it because it works. If a woman gives in as a defense mechanism, that most certainly doesn't mean she likes the tactic. Nor does giving a phone number, assuming it's not made-up, necessarily mean the woman actually approved of being catcalled - I've given my number out plenty of times and then ignored any texts or calls (not to catcallers, but in analogous situations). This isn't "mixed signals," this is how to get rid of someone bothersome literally without coming off as "too mean" for a woman (see, even I feel the pressure to act based on stereotypes!). There's also the completely separate issue of some men drastically misreading intentions in the first place. The fact remains that catcalling specifically has a really low success rate.

----------


## specsaregood

> Okay.  Watched it.  Yeah, some of what she noted as "harassment" couldn't be honestly called that.  But maybe it's a New York thing.  I live in the south and people here often acknowledge strangers with small talk as they pass each other on the sidewalk.  If every time some stranger says "Good evening" that's a "cat call" then I've been hit on much more than I realize.


Yeah, much of what I saw was just polite behavior.  I mean I grew in the Midwest where you acknowledged other people you passed on the street.   Sure there were a couple creepers, but they were in the minority.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Go ahead, keep confirming that you are obtuse - the jury's still out on whether you are deliberately so or if you can't help it, though. The most stunning thing is that your own defensive behavior perfectly illustrates the need to have a chat as a society about this issue... like what you so enthusiastically applauded chudrocks for doing. So reading your posts, any reasonable person is left scratching his/her head. It is a problem that as jonhowe and chud illustrated, is capable of being vastly improved if not completely solved. I am confident that neither of these two men, or many of the other men on this topic with sympathetic attitudes, take umbrage to the suggestion that attitudes toward this need to change. 
> 
> Men who are unsympathetic or hostile to women's concerns are being "shamed" because there are already many awesome ones that understand why this is unacceptable. So if you aren't willing to muster the effort to be a decent person, (you are not despite your claims) kindly move on.


Oh, I get it.  You're having trouble reconciling the fact that I don't think this is a big deal with the fact that I severely disdain people who mistreat women.  It's called cognitive dissonance.  But the two are not incompatible, so maybe you should work on that little misconception first.

Tell me, what would make me a decent person?  I've already stated that I wouldn't approve of my friends doing this and I would tell them so.  What else am I supposed to do to be "decent" in your eyes?

----------


## pessimist



----------


## pessimist



----------


## jmdrake

> I personally did not watch the video and do not plan on doing so because I am generally skeptical of things that go viral. However, I am still prepared to counter the poor arguments and callous disregard for fellow humans that inevitably spring up on topics like this one. I see the video as a good thing in that it spurs the conversation about these issues. Re: your actual point, some smiles do come off as lecherous rather than friendly; the same goes for winks, and I don't think it's nitpicky or an overreaction  at all to mention that there is some nuance involved with both.


Okay.  But isn't it fair to say that someone's innocent wink that's meant to be reassuring could be misconstrued by some perceived harassment victim?  In the video the woman lumped everything together.  There was no "nuance".  Yeah walking beside a woman and staring her down is lecherous.  But to get the "harassment" numbers up the video included a lot a arguably non lecherous behavior.  That's the problem with it.

----------


## JK/SEA

gay guys can be considered Alpha males....

----------


## Deborah K

If that video is the definition of harassment, then we're in big trouble.  The "outta be a law" types will eat this up and spit out another version of "hate crime" legislation.

I'm betting we'll see more of this kind of thing as Hitlery goes on the campaign trail.  "War on women" is already the new mantra.  Heck, they're laying the groundwork now with this stupid ass video, and the one with the trashy little girls.  And the answer will be a LIBERAL woman for Prez.

----------


## dannno

> Again, you can't just assume that women like it because it works. If a woman gives in as a defense mechanism, that most certainly doesn't mean she likes the tactic. Nor does giving a phone number, assuming it's not made-up, necessarily mean the woman actually approved of being catcalled


You're wrong, a lot of women like getting that type of attention. That's just how it is, take it up with them. It may be a minority of women, they may not like EVERY guy cat calling them, but that may be their preferred method of pickup from people who they find attractive because it shows initiative, which is something they find attractive.

When I say it 'works' for some guys, I don't mean it worked because they got a phone number, I mean it worked because they got laid which is the goal.

----------


## Philhelm

> Well, then we have a different perception. I have the image of the ripped dudes in tribal tattoos who walk around in "I do alpha male $#@!" t-shirts, or the frat boy douche smashing beer bottles over his head, or Brock Lesnar.
> 
> I've always thought an 'alpha' was a man trying to exert his dominance over weaker men as part of some mating ritual.


You are describing $#@!s.  Granted, sometimes $#@!s can be alpha, but that isn't a requirement.  Also, a man does not need to have high physical strength or good looks in order to be alpha, since it's primarily mental, although those traits can certainly help.  I think it's more of a case in which men who are physically imposing, or are attractive and used to being validated by women's acceptance, naturally tend to be more confident.  Also, women want to be dominated (please note:  not abused).  In fact, women constantly test men in order to ensure their fitness as a leader, protector, and provider.  This is why women sometimes act like spoiled children or creat conflict seemingly out of nowhere.  Failure to pass these tests often results in a dead bedroom situation and/or divorce.  A woman does not want to wear the pants.




> duh! Any man with high status is going to get a more favorable reaction from women than the average Joe. Any good looking guy is going to get a more favorable reaction on first glance. What is your point?


Since you equated $#@! with alpha, it seemed necessary to include.




> This is absurd. You are are VASTLY underestimating the power of personality. I am not sure what you mean by "acting weak" but many of these smart, funny dudes have sociopathic wit and charm, who know how to 'turn women on'. I have no idea what you're talking about here.


Personality _does_ help.  Being smart, funny, or what have you _are_ good traits, but those aren't the traits that get a woman's panties wet; rather they are traits to supplement the alpha.  Here are examples of acting weak that will lose points with women:  shyness, nervousness, acting as though the woman is the prize (a man's mindset should be that _he_ is the prize, being a doormat, no ambition, no goals, poor leadership, etc.




> An ugly, glib, car salesman type well versed in the art of persuasion can get laid pretty much any time he wants to by manipulating and conning dumb women.  Is he alpha?


If he's an ugly car salesman and only gets laid by lying, then he probably isn't an alpha male.




> Yeah, I must have a different view of the "alpha male", but GOOD LOOKS has nothing to do with alpha or beta. There are a $#@! load of pretty boys who don't "do alpha male $#@!" or are even particularly masculine, but they can get laid any time they want because they're "hot".
> 
> Wow! Women like hot guys, like men like hot women? Who would have thought?


Women do like hot guys, but not to the extent that men do.  Women put more emphasis on money/status/confidence in addition to looks.  If a woman is pretty, broke, unemployed, and shy, she will have no problems getting laid since she is pretty.  If a man is good-looking, broke, unemployed, and shy, he _may_ get laid because of his good looks, but it won't be nearly as easy for him and it will likely not result in a long-term relationship.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> You're wrong, a lot of women like getting that type of attention. That's just how it is, take it up with them. It may be a minority of women, they may not like EVERY guy cat calling them, but that may be their preferred method of pickup from people who they find attractive because it shows initiative, which is something they find attractive.


Sadly, none of what you just typed contradicts my point. I said that the fact that a woman gives out her phone number doesn't necessarily imply that she enjoyed the interaction. The women you are talking about are a subset of a larger group, but again, this doesn't contradict what I have said. My thoughts on this subset are that although I personally don't know anyone who prefers being catcalled to being interacted with in other situations, I am willing to grant for the sake of argument that they exist, but this sort of preference seems sort of illogical, given that there are far more superior ways of interacting with people who find you attractive (that don't involve potential danger, aren't inherently random and aren't potentially bothersome).

----------


## Philhelm

> Nor does giving a phone number, assuming it's not made-up, necessarily mean the woman actually approved of being catcalled - *I've given my number out plenty of times and then ignored any texts or calls* (not to catcallers, but in analogous situations). This isn't "mixed signals," this is how to get rid of someone bothersome literally without coming off as "too mean" for a woman (see, even I feel the pressure to act based on stereotypes!).


Actually, this seems more like something a jerk would do, male or female.

----------


## Philhelm

> gay guys can be considered Alpha males....


This is true, although obviously there is a different dynamic in the mating ritual.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> 


Thanks! I seriously LOLed on that one.

----------


## jmdrake

> Again, you can't just assume that women like it because it works. If a woman gives in as a defense mechanism, that most certainly doesn't mean she likes the tactic. Nor does giving a phone number, assuming it's not made-up, necessarily mean the woman actually approved of being catcalled - I've given my number out plenty of times and then ignored any texts or calls (not to catcallers, but in analogous situations). This isn't "mixed signals," this is how to get rid of someone bothersome literally without coming off as "too mean" for a woman (see, even I feel the pressure to act based on stereotypes!). There's also the completely separate issue of some men drastically misreading intentions in the first place. The fact remains that catcalling specifically has a really low success rate.


By "working" I mean guys end up sleeping with their targets.  It might not work all the time, but it works enough of the time for guys to keep trying it.  You aren't every woman and you don't know what every woman likes or doesn't like.  Again think "Nigerian emails".  There's no way in hell that scam should have ever worked let alone still work.  And yet....people still fall for it.  Here's a homeless guy making cat calls work for him.




Now maybe it's all fake and *all* these women were actors.   Then again...maybe not.

----------


## dannno

> Sadly, none of what you just typed contradicts my point. I said that the fact that a woman gives out her phone number doesn't necessarily imply that she enjoyed the interaction. The women you are talking about are a subset of a larger group, but again, this doesn't contradict what I have said. My thoughts on this subset are that although I personally don't know anyone who prefers being catcalled to being interacted with in other situations, I am willing to grant for the sake of argument that they exist, but this sort of preference seems sort of illogical, given that there are far more superior ways of interacting with people who find you attractive (that don't involve potential danger, aren't inherently random and aren't potentially bothersome).


I said the fact that a woman gives her phone number out is not what I equate to 'success'. Success would be a cat call, followed by a civil conversation, that leads to sex whether a phone number is exchanged or not. 

Cat calling in itself is not dangerous, and I don't really care if people are 'bothered' by things, just do what you can to avoid them as best you can. People will always bother other people, and men have the right to talk to women randomly if they want. I think people that judge them for hitting on women that they perceive as more attractive and thus 'above them' are superficial.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Actually, this seems more like something a jerk would do, male or female.


It may be jerky behavior, but it's passive jerky behavior and has the effect of putting off any negative reactions until later. The short-term consequences of refusing to give a phone number out (awkwardness at best, violence at worst) are much more severe to me than not being around to witness someone's disappointment at my lack of further contact. I will say, while I'm in a confessional mood, that I think I can sometimes be an awkward person and so I'm hyper-sensitive to anything that would make me seem weird, such as refusing to give out a number even if I did enjoy any conversation leading up to the request. I chat most of the time to be friendly, not because I'm looking for anything else from that interaction.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> In fact if you are very attractive (I wouldn't put this actress in the very attractive category), most decent men aren't going to hit on you even if you *want* them to, and even if the situation is "appropriate".


Very good point. Some people in this thread have claimed that the woman in the video was not really even attractive. That's the point. She was more accessible, more in their league. And from all indications, she had a big booty in tight pants. IIRC, some studies have shown that to be a magnet for that kind of attention, especially if the face isn't super-model.

I was at a tech conference one time where some idiot had hired two models as his "booth bunnies". Far too attractive. Some other booth had a cute, but more average girl with a friendly disposition. Guess which booth had nearly zero people, and which one had a constant crowd?




> LOL.  As a black man living in Tennessee right after Obama got elected I had white people coming up to me and giving me high fives and saying "We did it!"  Not sure what that's supposed to mean.


Did you respond with "What? Did Ron Paul win?!"

----------


## Deborah K

> By "working" I mean guys end up sleeping with their targets.  It might not work all the time, but it works enough of the time for guys to keep trying it.  You aren't every woman and you don't know what every woman likes or doesn't like.  Again think "Nigerian emails".  There's no way in hell that scam should have ever worked let alone still work.  And yet....people still fall for it.  Here's a homeless guy making cat calls work for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now maybe it's all fake and *all* these women were actors.   Then again...maybe not.


He's an addict.  That's really sad.

----------


## jmdrake

> Very good point. Some people in this thread have claimed that the woman in the video was not really even attractive. That's the point. She was more accessible, more in their league. And from all indications, she had a big booty in tight pants. IIRC, some studies have shown that to be a magnet for that kind of attention, especially if the face isn't super-model.
> 
> I was at a tech conference one time where some idiot had hired two models as his "booth bunnies". Far too attractive. Some other booth had a cute, but more average girl with a friendly disposition. Guess which booth had nearly zero people, and which one had a constant crowd?


Yeah.  The one time I went to COMDEX I actually tried to talk to a couple of "booth bunnies" about their products.  They were clueless.  Oh well.





> Did you respond with "What? Did Ron Paul win?!"


LOL.  I wish I'd thought of that.  Maybe if Rand Paul wins I'll go to the liberal part of town, walk around and hive five white people and say "We did it!"

----------


## jmdrake

> He's an addict.  That's really sad.


Yeah.  Homelessness is sad all around whatever the reason.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sadly, none of what you just typed contradicts my point. I said that the fact that a woman gives out her phone number doesn't necessarily imply that she enjoyed the interaction. The women you are talking about are a subset of a larger group, but again, this doesn't contradict what I have said. My thoughts on this subset are that although I personally don't know anyone who prefers being catcalled to being interacted with in other situations, I am willing to grant for the sake of argument that they exist, but this sort of preference seems sort of illogical, given that there are far more superior ways of interacting with people who find you attractive (that don't involve potential danger, aren't inherently random and aren't potentially bothersome).


You know, some people actually believe in love at first sight, and cat-calling is really just an extension of that.  While it can often be jerkish and rude behavior (construction workers doing it just for kicks), sometimes people just feel the need to catch up with someone and learn more about them before they're lost forever in the endless throng of faces.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yeah.  The one time I went to COMDEX I actually tried to talk to a couple of "booth bunnies" about their products.  They were clueless.  Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  I wish I'd thought of that.  Maybe if Rand Paul wins I'll go to the liberal part of town, walk around and hive five white people and say "We did it!"


Lol.  They'll say, "What?  Did Hillary win?"

----------


## pessimist

> You are describing $#@!s.


Many embody the "alpha male" archetype.




> Granted, sometimes $#@!s can be alpha, but that isn't a requirement.


Most dudes who fancy themselves as "alpha males" likely scare the living $#@! out the average woman. Women are generally not impressed with two roided out freaks smashing each other in the face, or rolling on the ground half naked. Typically that violent homoerotic imagery tends to be way more impressive to men.

It is MEN who tend to be drawn to the alpha male types. It is men who admire the 'physically powerful' male, and often judge other men's bodies.

Those types do get laid a lot though, but they tend to draw low class women; the porn stars, the "aspiring actresses", the women with low self-esteems and low intelligence.




> Also, a man does not need to have high physical strength or good looks in order to be alpha, since it's primarily mental, although those traits can certainly help


With all due respect, your constant referring to "good looking, Alpha male studs" and your "intelligent, smart, funny guys are totally beta" seemed to imply something else. It seemed like you were focused more on the physical and primal rather than the mental.




> I think it's more of a case in which men who are physically imposing, or are attractive and used to being validated by women's acceptance, naturally tend to be more confident.


I definitely agree that they tend to be more 'confident' but don't you think some of these physically imposing alpha studs can sometimes scare off women, thus having the opposite effect? You know, not all women are impressed by large dominate men. We are not in the jungle anymore.




> Also, women want to be dominated (please note: not abused)


You lost me here.




> In fact, women constantly test men in order to ensure their fitness as a leader, protector, and provider.


Well, my ex wanted to be the leader and we shared the financial responsibilities, but I guess I was kind of the 'protector'.  Anyway, I don't know how accurate this is outside of tribal communities, but I do understand what you're implying here.




> This is why women sometimes act like spoiled children or creat conflict seemingly out of nowhere. Failure to pass these tests often results in a dead bedroom situation and/or divorce. A woman does not want to wear the pants.


You know, from my observation, a lot of failed marriages occur because of incompatible personalities. The man is unable to meet the emotional needs/stimulation that his wife requires, and she disregards his physical needs.The results? Infidelity, divorce, and unhappy marriages.

----------


## juleswin

To the person who gave me a -rep and a very aggressive message, I think you just harassed me. Which professional victim campaigner would take up my cause? I seriously cannot live any longer having to deal with first world problem such as this.  


Please this is not me trying to get sympathy reps, the -repper rep power only made a slight dent to my overall rating.

----------


## Carlybee

http://cheezburger.com/65728513

10 hours of walking in New York as a man

----------


## Philhelm

> Most dudes who fancy themselves as "alpha males" likely scare the living $#@! out the average woman. *Women are generally not impressed with two roided out freaks smashing each other in the face*, or rolling on the ground half naked. Typically that violent homoerotic imagery tends to be way more impressive to men.


Again, you are describing $#@!s that may or may not be alpha.  Judging from your comments and given the two pictures you posted earlier, we are definitely not on the same page.  Sure, a gym rat that goes around calling people "brah" could possibly be alpha, but a lack of muscles does not preclude an alpha mindset.




> It is MEN who tend to be drawn to the alpha male types. It is men who admire the 'physically powerful' male, and often judge other men's bodies.  Those types do get laid a lot though, but they tend to draw low class women; the porn stars, the "aspiring actresses", the women with low self-esteems and low intelligence.


Okay, we're still not on the same page.  But even your examples would be more succesful than a limp-wristed Starbucks patron with thick-rimmed glasses and high sensitivity.




> With all due respect, your constant referring to "good looking, Alpha male studs" and your "intelligent, smart, funny guys are totally beta" seemed to imply something else. It seemed like you were focused more on the physical and primal rather than the mental.


First, I never stated that being intelligent, smart, or funny are Beta traits.  In fact, the most capable Alphas would be highly intelligent.  My point is that these traits alone won't get the dripping wet panties dropping; after all, there are plenty of smart and funny men that have bad luck with the ladies.  Regarding the physical attributes, being handsome and well-built _are_ Alpha traits, but all men have a combination of Alpha/Beta traits; being handsome and muscular alone does not make a man alpha.  They are simply bonuses, although they can sometimes be enough to get laid.




> I definitely agree that they tend to be more 'confident' but don't you think some of these physically imposing alpha studs can sometimes scare off women, thus having the opposite effect? You know, not all women are impressed by large dominate men. We are not in the jungle anymore.


This would depend on circumstance and the man's interaction.  If a hugely built guy were to follow a woman in a parking lot at midnight without saying a word, then she would probably be a bit scared.  But if the same man were to approach her at a party and start gaming her with confidence, her panties might get moist.




> You lost me here.


Women want to be dominated.  They want the man to lead.  In fact, my wife point-blank tells me this sometimes when we discuss something as simple as where we want to go to eat.  It took me awhile to realize that she wants me to just decide something and let me lead the way.  If a woman is with a man that can't take the lead she loses confidence in him; she may take the lead out of necessity, but she does not want to be in that position.  Bossy women are bossy because they think they have to be, since the men that should be leading are weak.




> Well, my ex wanted to be the leader and we shared the financial responsibilities, but I guess I was kind of the 'protector'.  Anyway, I don't know how accurate this is outside of tribal communities, but I do understand what you're implying here.


Regarding "tribal communities," sexual desire _is_ primal, despite the so-called sophistication of Western society.  A woman will intellectually decide to date/marry a Beta if he can be a good provider, but she isn't going to have the same sexual passion with him that she would otherwise have with an Alpah male.  I guarantee that your ex did not want to be the leader.  In fact, you had stated in another thread that you consider yourself to have feminine traits, so I imagine that you failed to take the lead forcing her to take the reigns.  It's no surprise that she is your ex.  If you shared financial responsibilies but weren't designated as the leader, you were likely playing the "Beta Bucks" role.




> You know, from my observation, a lot of failed marriages occur because of incompatible personalities. *The man is unable to meet the emotional needs/stimulation that his wife requires*, and she disregards his physical needs.The results? Infidelity, divorce, and unhappy marriages.


Ding!  Ding!  Ding!  Even Alphas can fall into a Beta role.  Women will get bored of the man if he can no longer prove that he is the leader, or if he is unable to stimulate her sexual desires.  Women are far more likely to leave a marriage than a man (although part of that is due to divorce rape).  Being Beta simply does not make a woman's vagina tingle with desire.

----------


## pessimist

> Again, you are describing $#@!s that may or may not be alpha.  Judging from your comments and given the two pictures you posted earlier, we are definitely not on the same page.  Sure, a gym rat that goes around calling people "brah" could possibly be alpha, but a lack of muscles does not preclude an alpha mindset.


Okay, I obviously have a completely different image in mind, but most of the guys who are self-proclaimed alphas tend to fit that description.

Would you consider a tall good looking guy with a high IQ, who cried during the Notebook, likes romantic dinners, walks on the beach, and cooks his wife breakfast every morning to be alpha?




> Okay, we're still not on the same page. But even your examples would be more succesful than a limp-wristed Starbucks patron with thick-rimmed glasses and high sensitivity.


It depends on the type of woman. The nerdy Starbucks patron just might be a Harvard grad with a big bank account, and a well developed sense of humor who can relate to women. In that example, I don't think HE would want the women that would be attracted to the aforementioned "alpha's."

Sex as a conquest usually doesn't interest those types anyway.




> First, I never stated that being intelligent, smart, or funny are Beta traits.


Well, you certainly were giving off that impression.




> My point is that these traits alone won't get the dripping wet panties dropping;


A hot guy can get a chicks "panties wet" the moment he walks into a room. What the hell does 'alpha' or 'beta' have to do with anything? 




> after all, there are plenty of smart and funny men that have bad luck with the ladies.


Agreed. But this is true of every type of man out there. A smart and funny guy who is sensitive and listens and communicates will probably be more appealing than the loudmouth, beer-guzzling bro with a roofie in his pocket.

Good looking, physically fit guys can probably get laid at will, but can they all hold a relationship? 

Is Bill Gates an alpha in your opinion?





> Ding! Ding! Ding! Even Alphas can fall into a Beta role. Women will get bored of the man if he can no longer prove that he is the leader, or if he is unable to stimulate her sexual desires. Women are far more likely to leave a marriage than a man (although part of that is due to divorce rape). Being Beta simply does not make a woman's vagina tingle with desire.


I am not talking about HER sexual needs. I am talking her EMOTIONAL needs. Many wives feel lonely and neglected; there is no communication or mental stimulation or excitement. 

So they look elsewhere to get it or lash out at their husbands in other ways to express their frustration. Women are generally more subtle.

Men, unable to adequately provide those type of needs, are rejected from their physical ones (sex) from their wives.

----------


## Philhelm

> Okay, I obviously have a completely different image in mind, but most of the guys who are self-proclaimed alphas tend to fit that description.


A real Alpha won't go around talking about how Alpha he is.




> Would you consider a tall good looking guy with a high IQ, who cried during the Notebook, likes romantic dinners, walk on the beaches, and cooks his wife breakfast every morning to be alpha?


If he acts as an emotional tampon for his woman, then he probably leans toward Beta, although as stated before, men can have traits from both spectrums.  Also, when it comes to long-term relationships it's actually bad to be too Alpha all the time.




> It depends on the type of woman. The nerdy Starbuck patron just might be a Harvard grad, with a big bank account, and a well-developed sense of humor who can relate to women. In that example, I don't think HE would want the women that would be attracted to the aforementioned "alpha's."


Alpha $#@!s/Beta Bucks.  Money can attract women to commit to a relationship, but it doesn't get their vaginas tingling.  This is where the stereotype of the doctor's wife having an affair with the pool buy comes into the picture.




> Sex as a conquest usually doesn't interest those types anyway.


Sex is sex; the "conquest" element is somewhat irrelevant.




> A hot guy can get a chicks "panties wet" the moment he walks into a room. What the hell does 'alpha' or 'beta' have to do with anything?


Well sure, but once he opens his mouth and comes across as weak, then he will lose estimation.  Remember, even Betas can and do get laid, it's just that the Beta traits limit the number/quality of women that are obtainable.  The hot, confident man will be much, much more successful than the hot, unconfident man.  Even if the hot unconfident man can make it into the sack with the woman, he will have a hard time keeping her interest for a long-term relationship.




> Agreed. But this is true of every type of man out there. A smart and funny guy who is sensitive and listens and communicates will probably be more appealing that the loud-mouth, beer-guzzling bro with a roofie in his pocket.


Dammit man, Alpha doesn't mean loud-mouthed, beer-guzzling bro with a roofie in his pocket.  For example, a Liam Neeson character would be a good example of a non-$#@! Alpha, since his characters tend to be confident and have a fatherly authoritative aura, but he does not run around crushing beers on his head.




> Good looking, physically fit guys can probably get laid at will, but can they all hold a relationship?


They can hold a relationship if they aren't doormats.




> Is Bill Gates an alpha in your opinion?


I've read that his real personality is much different from the geek persona that most people think of him.  He supposedly fostered competition and was pretty ruthless, so he may very well be an Alpha.




> I am not talking about HER sexual needs. I am talking her EMOTIONAL needs. Many wives feel lonely and neglected; there is no communication or mental stimulation or excitement.


If a woman is simply neglected, even from an Alpha, she won't be happy.  An alpha needs to be able to stimulate the woman emotionally, but can't become too sensitive lest he loses respect.[/quote]

----------


## pessimist

> If he acts as an emotional tampon for his woman, then he probably leans toward Beta, although as stated before, men can have traits from both spectrums.  Also, when it comes to long-term relationships it's actually bad to be too Alpha all the time.



If you observe long lasting relationships (I am talking 30+ years here)- you will notice that those couples have developed into an almost brother-sister type of relationship. Hell, many of them even start to look alike. They are so comfortable and content and familiar with each other that they have no desire to seek stimulation elsewhere.

This has nothing to do with 'alpha' or 'beta' or any of that nonsense, it has to do with compatibility. The fact is, a lot people discover that they were just in a relationship or married to the wrong person.




> Alpha $#@!s/Beta Bucks. Money can attract women to commit to a relationship, but it doesn't get their vaginas tingling. This is where the stereotype of the doctor's wife having an affair with the pool buy comes into the picture.


So what? If the "beta" guy is in a content relationship, and his wife or girlfriend have great chemistry and conversation and connect on an intimate level- who gives a $#@! is she is turned on by hot guys? That is human nature. Hot and sexy people tend to kick the hormones into gear. 

That doesn't mean she is going to cheat on him.




> Sex is sex; the "conquest" element is somewhat irrelevant.


Sex with intimacy is vastly different from banging some drunk chick in back of your car and bragging to your friends about it.




> Well sure, but once he opens his mouth and comes across as weak, then he will lose estimation. Remember, even Betas can and do get laid, it's just that the Beta traits limit the number/quality of women that are obtainable. The hot, confident man will be much, much more successful than the hot, unconfident man. Even if the hot unconfident man can make it into the sack with the woman, he will have a hard time keeping her interest for a long-term relationship.



I think relationships are more about compatibility than anything else. I can't buy into this alpha/beta stuff. 

If a woman wants to be "dominated", she'll seek out the guy that will "dominate" her. If a woman wants a partner, she'll seek out a partner, etc. Same goes for the men. We just have a different perception of humanity and relationships.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

She's rejecting the idle, unemployed, fat, invalid, students, and Haile Selassie?  It's obvious she deserves so much more with her attitude.

----------


## jonhowe

> The worst that this guy in the video can be accused of is being impolite and socially awkward.


I told myself I would not come back to this thread. But I did. And I read this.

I regret coming back to this thread.







PaulConventionWV, you and I must live in different worlds, or different times, or different planets; this is not the 1st (or the 2nd/3rd/10th/17th) time we've fundamentally disagreed on an issue. I can't figure it out. But ESPECIALLY on this issue. I know you don't "hate women" or "wage war on women", in fact I can tell you're a decent/nice guy who I'd probably get along with if no serious discussions ever came up. 

But yet you CLEARLY do not understand how this phenomenon affects the women it does. It's not an issue in your area; I totally understand that. It was not an issue in rural Western MA where I grew up either. Or in Long Island where I went to school. But it IS an issue here, in New York. It was an issue in Park Slope when I lived there, in the Upper East Side (think: "The Met") where I lived later (and now work), and it is CERTAINLY an issue here in Washington Heights. Partly this comes from "urban living", partly from the melting pot effect, partly because it's a thing New Yorkers traditionally "do"... but mostly because we (men/women/children/other) put up with it! YOU put up with it. You don't even see it as an issue!! You think the guy was "just walking". PLEASE tell me you're just playing dense and don't actually think that; I know you arent stupid! But if you STILL think that, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

----------


## PRB

> She's rejecting the idle, unemployed, fat, invalid, students, and Haile Selassie?  It's obvious she deserves so much more with her attitude.


ok, now I have to watch the video again.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ok, now I have to watch the video again.





"Hey, looky there.   I just found a thousand dollars."


I don't know who was funnier.  Mister purple or the guy who thought he was ugly.

----------


## acptulsa

> My thoughts on this subset are that although I personally don't know anyone who prefers being catcalled to being interacted with in other situations, I am willing to grant for the sake of argument that they exist, but this sort of preference seems sort of illogical, given that there are far more superior ways of interacting with people who find you attractive (that don't involve potential danger, aren't inherently random and aren't potentially bothersome).


And I still say this 'war on women' isn't being waged by men.  It's women who encourage a certain type of behavior being subjected to massive, highly organized peer pressure by _other women._




> With all due respect, your constant referring to "good looking, Alpha male studs" and your "intelligent, smart, funny guys are totally beta" seemed to imply something else. It seemed like you were focused more on the physical and primal rather than the mental.
> 
> I definitely agree that they tend to be more 'confident' but don't you think some of these physically imposing alpha studs can sometimes scare off women, thus having the opposite effect? You know, not all women are impressed by large dominate men. We are not in the jungle anymore.


With all due respect, you're focusing on the physical, too.

Not long ago, I saw a guy at a convenience store.  He had no shirt on, yelled 'Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!' four or five times, and was accosting people for a gas can and/or a ride because he had stupidly run himself out of gas.  He went into the store with no shirt; I was back out by then and don't know if they kicked him back out or took his gas money just to get rid of him.  But I do know that a cute little petite thing was smiling at him and laughing at his Tourettes outbursts, and when he asked her for a ride she gave him one.

I don't know what happened to her, but I assume it wasn't anything she didn't want to happen.

'Alpha' can mean knows no fear, or it can mean covers fear up well.  Alphas do something even if its wrong, and shrug off--or pretend to--all criticism.  It has nothing to do with their appearance _at all._  And every woman responds to that at least to some degree. 

I guess in an overly safe, idiotproof world, that sort of psychosis stands in for the true courage that we never seem to get a chance to display any more.  It seems we can take humans out of the jungle, but it's a bit more difficult to take the jungle out of humans--especially when it comes to purely instinctual things like sex appeal.  Leave it to progressives and liberals to try to change something like that.

I'm glad I'm a libertarian and not honor bound to engage in such windmill tilting.  And liberals called Ron Paul 'quixotic'.  If it takes one to know one, they're much more expert than even Ron Paul is...

----------


## jmdrake

> I really don't feel the need to go around "policing" other men.  The worst that this guy in the video can be accused of is being impolite and socially awkward.





> I told myself I would not come back to this thread. But I did. And I read this.
> 
> I regret coming back to this thread.
> 
> PaulConventionWV, you and I must live in different worlds, or different times, or different planets; this is not the 1st (or the 2nd/3rd/10th/17th) time we've fundamentally disagreed on an issue. I can't figure it out. But ESPECIALLY on this issue. I know you don't "hate women" or "wage war on women", in fact I can tell you're a decent/nice guy who I'd probably get along with if no serious discussions ever came up. 
> 
> But yet you CLEARLY do not understand how this phenomenon affects the women it does. It's not an issue in your area; I totally understand that. It was not an issue in rural Western MA where I grew up either. Or in Long Island where I went to school. But it IS an issue here, in New York. It was an issue in Park Slope when I lived there, in the Upper East Side (think: "The Met") where I lived later (and now work), and it is CERTAINLY an issue here in Washington Heights. Partly this comes from "urban living", partly from the melting pot effect, partly because it's a thing New Yorkers traditionally "do"... but mostly because we (men/women/children/other) put up with it! YOU put up with it. You don't even see it as an issue!! You think the guy was "just walking". PLEASE tell me you're just playing dense and don't actually think that; I know you arent stupid! But if you STILL think that, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!


And your "solution" to this supposed "problem" is what exactly?  Really there's no point in talking about a "problem" unless you have a solution.  PaulConventionWV said you don't have anything to accuse this guy of.  He's right.  No crime was committed in that video.  [b]Nothing I would want criminalized happened in that video[b]!  Were some of the actions rude?  Yes.  Rude is another word for "impolite".  Some of the actions that the drama queen wannabe actress who is the star of the video deemed "harassment" and "cat calling" were actually men being polite.  Some men said "Good evening".  Oh wow!  How terrible of them!  But let's take the dude walking beside her for 5 minutes.  Rude?  Yes.  Socially unacceptable?  Yes.  Criminal?  No.  Violation of NAP?  Debatable.  

But back to the solution.  I assume you have the common sense not to want any of the behavior depicted in the video criminalized.  So...tell guys don't do that?  Okay.  I doubt any of your audience here at RPF would do that.  The guys who would do that don't give a crap what you think.  And why do they not give a crap?  Because sometimes "cat calling" actually works.  Maybe not the"follow the woman for 5 minutes" strategy, but throwing out a "My you look good" compliment to some woman on the street you've never met sometimes ends up with you and that woman in bed together.  And as long as that happens, guys will keep trying it even if most of their attempts are miserable failures.  In fact all of their own personal attempts might be failures.  They just need to know of some other guy that it's worked for to be motivated to try it.  Like this homeless pick up artist for instance.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I told myself I would not come back to this thread. But I did. And I read this.
> 
> I regret coming back to this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look, I am only concerned with two things in this discussion.  The woman was not acting like a normal woman would.  I don't think that is up for debate.  Secondly, what are we supposed to do about it?  

Those are the two main things I am concerned with about this whole thing.  Since the woman did not act normally, that means the video did not represent what normally happens to women while walking in the city.  Also, since you seem so intent on changing my mind, what is it you want me to do about this issue that I don't already do?  Tell friends, talk about it, etc... yeah, but if I already do those things, what more do you want me to do?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And your "solution" to this supposed "problem" is what exactly?  Really there's no point in talking about a "problem" unless you have a solution.  PaulConventionWV said you don't have anything to accuse this guy of.  He's right.  No crime was committed in that video.  [b]Nothing I would want criminalized happened in that video[b]!  Were some of the actions rude?  Yes.  Rude is another word for "impolite".  Some of the actions that the drama queen wannabe actress who is the star of the video deemed "harassment" and "cat calling" were actually men being polite.  Some men said "Good evening".  Oh wow!  How terrible of them!  But let's take the dude walking beside her for 5 minutes.  Rude?  Yes.  Socially unacceptable?  Yes.  Criminal?  No.  Violation of NAP?  Debatable.  
> 
> But back to the solution.  I assume you have the common sense not to want any of the behavior depicted in the video criminalized.  So...tell guys don't do that?  Okay.  I doubt any of your audience here at RPF would do that.  The guys who would do that don't give a crap what you think.  And why do they not give a crap?  Because sometimes "cat calling" actually works.  Maybe not the"follow the woman for 5 minutes" strategy, but throwing out a "My you look good" compliment to some woman on the street you've never met sometimes ends up with you and that woman in bed together.  And as long as that happens, guys will keep trying it even if most of their attempts are miserable failures.  In fact all of their own personal attempts might be failures.  They just need to know of some other guy that it's worked for to be motivated to try it.  Like this homeless pick up artist for instance.


I wouldn't even say walking beside her being a violation of the NAP is debatable.  It is NOT a violation of the NAP.  It would have been IF she told him that she didn't want him there.  Literally any other woman would have done that in a normal situation, but since she didn't say anything, that means this video does not represent a normal situation.  It represents something else, so we can't pass judgment on the dude's behavior because the woman was an actor and she was ACTING, but he wasn't.  So how can you compare interactions where one person is acting and the other isn't to a normal situation?  It's NOT NORMAL.

Just so you know, though, I agree with everything else you said except that one minor point.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

The problem seems to be that nobody can offer a tangible solution to this problem.  I have asked several times for a solution, and nobody has anything except "start a dialogue." 

Okay, done.  Dialogue exists.  We are talking about it.  Now what?

----------


## Acala

> Okay, I obviously have a completely different image in mind, but most of the guys who are self-proclaimed alphas tend to fit that description.
> 
> Would you consider a tall good looking guy with a high IQ, who cried during the Notebook, likes romantic dinners, walks on the beach, and cooks his wife breakfast every morning to be alpha?
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the type of woman. The nerdy Starbucks patron just might be a Harvard grad with a big bank account, and a well developed sense of humor who can relate to women. In that example, I don't think HE would want the women that would be attracted to the aforementioned "alpha's."
> 
> Sex as a conquest usually doesn't interest those types anyway.
> ...


Philhelm is trying to give you some really good advice.  Women respond to confidence.  There are evolutionary reasons for this but we will skip it for now.  It has nothing to do with looks or strength or "macho" behavior or any of the other things you would like to connect it with.  It is all about attitude.  And not the attitude of the braggart.  Rather, it is the attitude of the man who is captain of his own ship, content with his own life as it is (with or without the woman in question), and who is unwilling to change his course to try to "win" the woman.  Women don't really want you to accommodate them.  They want you to be in charge of your own life.  And because they know you are in charge and do not feel that they can control you, when you show concern for their needs and feelings, it means ten times MORE to them.  Bring a woman flowers every day and within two weeks she will be disgusted.  Bring her flowers when she does not expect it and you will make her day.  Or week.  

When a woman feels that you will accommodate her every whim because you think that will win her affection, welcome to the friend zone.  On the other hand, when a woman thinks you could just as easily walk out the door and never look back, but instead you stay and concern yourself with her happiness, THAT is the win.  For BOTH of you.  

The key is to really know, deep down, that you don't need acceptance or approval or affection from any woman and that you would rather live your life alone than tolerate any disrespect or have to jump through hoops.  Be confident that just being with you and having your attention is enough for any woman worth having.  If you have this down for real, then you can be the nice guy you really want to be.  Being a nice guy without this attitude is slow death.     

Somewhere in the archives there is a long thread on this.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

What's to be done about it, you ask?  This savvy campaign is way ahead of you:




> *Street harassment is a gateway crime* that makes other forms of gender-based violence OK. Studies conducted show that between *80-90% of women have been harassed in public*. *With legal recourse to address school and workplace harassment, streets remain one of the final frontiers in addressing and affirming basic, guaranteed civil rights.* - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/....HZNXydxT.dpuf




I'm sure they recognize that one the most effective solutions is legal.  They would be most happy to broaden interpretation of current law to cover this, but they also recognize a stumbling block:




> The law has historically failed to take seriously numerous issues affecting womens lives, and street harassment is no exception. Although several legal remedies could potentially be employed to combat street harassment, the current state of the legal system makes success highly unlikely. - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/....ymyT37ut.dpuf






> *Given the shortcomings of the law in this arena, a number of legal scholars and activists have suggested specific legal reforms that have yet to be implemented.* For a thorough review of current legal concepts used against street harassment and their failures, as well as proposed remedies, see Cynthia Grant Bowmans Street Harassment and the Informal Ghettoization of Women, published in the Harvard Law Review and available here.
>  - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/....ymyT37ut.dpuf






> It should be noted, however, that there exists one particular area where women have been extended greater protection: common carriers (buses, trains, and other transportation forms), and hotel guest situations. Women may recover damages more readily if harassed by an employeeor even another patronof a common carrier or hotel. - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/....ymyT37ut.dpuf




However, the above is not effective for street harassment because--why?--yes, it's racism:





> None of these remedies have yet been very useful in combating street harassment. This is in large part due to the effects of racism and sexism on the courts application of the law. - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/....ymyT37ut.dpuf

----------


## thoughtomator

And so it begins...

----------


## Philhelm

> And so it begins...


Can't watch the video yet, but I'm going to holler at a hot woman, "I used to be an adventurer like you..."

----------


## juleswin

Watch a buff man get harassed in the streets on NY




This also reminds me, I am 6'6 inches and almost 6'7 and I cannot tell you how many times someone says to me "how tall are you?" or "Your height is intimidating" or some old small lady at the grocery store flagging me down to get some items from the top shelf. I mean, when will the harassment stop?

----------


## Deborah K

> Watch a buff man get harassed in the streets on NY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This also reminds me, I am 6'6 inches and almost 6'7 and I cannot tell you how many times someone says to me "how tall are you?" or "Your height is intimidating" or some old small lady at the grocery store flagging me down to get some items from the top shelf. I mean, when will the harassment stop?


LOL@ that chick at the end.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> LOL@ that chick at the end.


Poor guy.  He goes through so much.  Obviously there's something wrong with society that demands our immediate attention.

----------


## Terry1

> Fuuuuuuuuuuuck! She was being rude to some.
> 
> 
> http://bgr.com/2014/10/28/street-har...k-gopro-video/


Hell--I'd pay for that kind of harassment at my age.  Thank God there's that many men still left that can appreciate a pretty woman.  God bless those harassers!

The guy walking along side her was just funny. He asked her if he was too ugly--LOL  That's okay, let her try that thirty years from now and she'll be wishing she was back being "harassed" again.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What's to be done about it, you ask?  This savvy campaign is way ahead of you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they recognize that one the most effective solutions is legal.  They would be most happy to broaden interpretation of current law to cover this, but they also recognize a stumbling block:
> 
> 
> ...


Now, how did I know there would be somebody pushing a legal remedy to this "problem"?  

It's a "gateway" crime, they say.  How long can the liberals in our midst keep standing beside these people while simultaneously trying to deny that they have a legal solution, or indeed, any solution at all?  Not one tangible solution not involving legal action has been offered by those who think this is such a big problem.

----------


## Terry1

> Watch a buff man get harassed in the streets on NY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This also reminds me, I am 6'6 inches and almost 6'7 and I cannot tell you how many times someone says to me "how tall are you?" or "Your height is intimidating" or some old small lady at the grocery store flagging me down to get some items from the top shelf. I mean, when will the harassment stop?


Hilarious!

----------


## dannno

> Hell--I'd pay for that kind of harassment at my age.  Thank God there's that many men still left that can appreciate a pretty woman.  God bless those harassers!


No no, you see, no women actually crave sexual attention.. You're just pretending to like the harassers because you are scared if you give a negative reaction they might get violent. All men who really like sex or are desperate and make multiple attempts at peacefully obtaining coitus with you are violent, you need to remember that, so never say 'no' more than once, just say it once, let them have their way with you and get raped and let the police handle the rest.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No no, you see, no women actually crave sexual attention.. You're just pretending to like the harassers because you are scared if you give a negative reaction they might get violent. All men who really like sex or are desperate and make multiple attempts at peacefully obtaining coitus with you are violent, you need to remember that, so never say 'no' more than once, just say it once, let them have their way with you and get raped and let the police handle the rest.


I did find Terry's comment a bit ironic, being that it came from Terry...

----------


## acptulsa

> Hell--I'd pay for that kind of harassment ...


I'd pay to learn a way to get this many people this uptight about stealing from our retirees through inflation and market manipulation, breaking the treasury to bomb brown babies, locking up a quarter of the population for ingesting plants, or just about anything else actually worth getting one's sphincter in a knot over, myself.

And I'd bet cash money that if Murray Rothbard were still with us, he'd feel the same way.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If you think someone is pretty, admire them from afar. Why must attraction be broadcasted so aggressively? Look at them, smile and move on.


That's how I've lived my entire life.  Now I'm 41, single, never married and no kids.  I'd rather have been an $#@! and have a family than everybody's picture of "the perfect guy" and end up cold and alone.  I am what I am because I bought all the new-generation how-to-treat-women BS hook line and sinker.  Forgive me for calling it BS from direct first hand experience..

----------


## Spikender

If I was a matchmaker I'd hook Gunny up with a nice girl who'd treat him right.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> That's how I've lived my entire life.  Now I'm 41, single, never married and no kids.  I'd rather have been an $#@! and have a family than everybody's picture of "the perfect guy" and end up cold and alone.  I am what I am because *I bought all the new-generation how-to-treat-women BS hook line and sinker.  Forgive me for calling it BS from direct first hand experience*..


I went through that short phase.  Be glad you figured it out when you did.

41?  I would not even worry about that at all.  It's never too late, my friend. 






> If I was a matchmaker I'd hook Gunny up with a nice girl who'd treat him right.


All of my in-laws (in another country) are married, but a few of their kids are now in their twenties.  Don't think I'd hesitate to set one of them up with Glenn.  My wife also has a lot of friends who are in this country, many of them permanently.  Some are in NC, but also all over the country.  If Gunny is ever out by the Tennessee line, then I'd gladly extend the invitation to meet.  Maybe this sounds awkward to post on a forum, but just throwing it out there.

----------


## Suzanimal

> No no, you see, no women actually crave sexual attention.. You're just pretending to like the harassers because you are scared if you give a negative reaction they might get violent. All men who really like sex or are desperate and make multiple attempts at peacefully obtaining coitus with you are violent, you need to remember that, so never say 'no' more than once, just say it once, let them have their way with you and get raped and let the police handle the rest.


Most of the time it's harmless fun but sometimes it gets creepy, I wouldn't appreciate being followed and the pervy catcalls are just rude, but I admit I enjoy getting a nice catcall.

----------


## Marenco

> Watch a buff man get harassed in the streets on NY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This also reminds me, I am 6'6 inches and almost 6'7 and I cannot tell you how many times someone says to me "how tall are you?" or "Your height is intimidating" or some old small lady at the grocery store flagging me down to get some items from the top shelf. I mean, when will the harassment stop?


I could just imagine the distress this man goes through all the time walking out in public.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Watch a buff man get harassed in the streets on NY



"Hey, what's up, big man?"


"Where you from?"



LOL.

----------


## jmdrake

> Watch a buff man get harassed in the streets on NY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This also reminds me, I am 6'6 inches and almost 6'7 and I cannot tell you how many times someone says to me "how tall are you?" or "Your height is intimidating" or some old small lady at the grocery store flagging me down to get some items from the top shelf. I mean, when will the harassment stop?


LOL.  @ 1:30 there are two guys dressed as fairies.  @ 1:44 there's a woman staring him down and her boyfriend turns her around.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Watch a buff man get harassed in the streets on NY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This also reminds me, I am 6'6 inches and almost 6'7 and I cannot tell you how many times someone says to me "how tall are you?" or "Your height is intimidating" or *some old small lady at the grocery store flagging me down to get some items from the top shelf*. I mean, when will the harassment stop?


The video was great and I'm guilty of asking tall men for help reaching stuff, sorry.

----------


## Terry1

> No no, you see, no women actually crave sexual attention.. You're just pretending to like the harassers because you are scared if you give a negative reaction they might get violent. All men who really like sex or are desperate and make multiple attempts at peacefully obtaining coitus with you are violent, you need to remember that, so never say 'no' more than once, just say it once, let them have their way with you and get raped and let the police handle the rest.


I'm a happily married Christian woman now--but in my younger days--whew--I did love to flirt and I've always loved the anatomy of men with their cute lil hairy parts. Never had any mental hangups in that dept.  Never was one of those women who didn't appreciate a man holding the door open either.  I guess you could say--I've always preferred gentlemen and never minded a whistle or a compliment.  Now I hold the door open for the men and slow down before I pass one of those cute lil cyclists on their mountain bikes in the spandex shorts.  It's not a sin either to appreciate the the finer things in life, I'd say that's pretty normal.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's how I've lived my entire life.  Now I'm 41, single, never married and no kids.  I'd rather have been an $#@! and have a family than everybody's picture of "the perfect guy" and end up cold and alone.  I am what I am because I bought all the new-generation how-to-treat-women BS hook line and sinker.  Forgive me for calling it BS from direct first hand experience..


What?  Can't let that happen!  Where are the single liberty ladies?  Gunny deserves to be as miserable happy as the rest of us idiots guys who tied the knot!




> If I was a matchmaker I'd hook Gunny up with a nice girl who'd treat him right.


Here here!  Seriously though, Gunny if you're reading that, try http://pof.com.  It's the best free, legit dating site of scene.  Not that I'm doing any online dating or anything...... 




> I went through that short phase.  Be glad you figured it out when you did.
> 
> 41?  I would not even worry about that at all.  It's never too late, my friend. 
> 
> All of my in-laws (in another country) are married, but a few of their kids are now in their twenties.  Don't think I'd hesitate to set one of them up with Glenn.  My wife also has a lot of friends who are in this country, many of them permanently.  Some are in NC, but also all over the country.  If Gunny is ever out by the Tennessee line, then I'd gladly extend the invitation to meet.  Maybe this sounds awkward to post on a forum, but just throwing it out there.


Hey....I'm in Tennessee....could you...?  (J/K.  I'm still somewhat shell shocked from my last relationship.)

----------


## pessimist

> That's how I've lived my entire life.  Now I'm 41, single, never married and no kids.  I'd rather have been an $#@! and have a family than everybody's picture of "the perfect guy" and end up cold and alone.  I am what I am because I bought all the new-generation how-to-treat-women BS hook line and sinker.  Forgive me for calling it BS from direct first hand experience..


I'll probably be single, bald, and insane by the time I am 40. But then again, I'm high maintenance and neurotic.

Hang in there man, you'll probably find someone. Plenty of  women out there are looking for the good, nice guy.

----------


## Spikender

The Gunny/Pessimist Find-A-Girl Support Group is a go.

----------


## fr33

It seems like in the $#@!hole that is NYC and the other east coast cities, saying hello is forbidden.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

The internet and social media in Hollaback's very slick campaign could very well aggressively resurrect their attempt to outlaw so-called "harassment."  Their cited article is a little older, but still relevant.


Here are some excerpts from the Harvard Legal Review article cited on this page (http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/legal/):




> "Thus, the legal category [legislation] that at first glance seems the most obvious remedy for street harassment is practically useless, at least in its current form.  Clearly, *we need to amend these statutes or write new ones*--and get many more women into the judiciary as well." (page 558)






> "...*draft and work toward the passage of state statutes or municipal ordinances that specifically prohibit gender-based street harassment* or to amend already existing harassment statutes to apply explicitly to street harassment.  On the municipal level, it will be necessary to mount campaigns in many localities in order to achieve more general coverage..." (page 575)







> *The author's sample statute:
> 
> "It shall be a misdemeanor...to engage in street harassment...
> 
> Street harassment occurs...with language...that is...implicitly sexual.  Such language includes...reference... to the target...as the object of sexual desire." (page 575)
> *














.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

The woman in the video is a disgusting slob.  Dollars to donuts says she would support new legislation to stop what happened in the video. 

She squeezes her thunder thighs into her high school pants.  She then complains when she attracts the economic and racial class of man mostly likely to lick his lips when viewing large drumsticks. 

Her expression at video's end says it all.  She did not attract the type of man she wants.  Instead of, however, taking her fat can to the gym, she'll stick it to her female competition and punish the men who dared think they are in her league.

The entire project is quite the double-edged sword for her.  She had to attract the colored man and various social degenerates to make her point; however, her self-image takes a large hit when she recognizes her look will attract her nothing better than those men in the video.

Furthermore, her organization cites racism, while also baiting the stupid black man into their little game.  Disgusting pigs.




.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Hey....I'm in Tennessee....could you...?  (J/K.  I'm still somewhat shell shocked from my last relationship.)



Hey, I understand.  If you're ever not kidding, then hit me up.  Not sure where you are in Tennessee, but I still have to take my wife to the Ryman.  Be glad to say hello if you're on the way.

----------


## jmdrake

> The internet and social media in Hollaback's very slick campaign could very well aggressively resurrect their attempt to outlaw so-called "harassment."  Their cited article is a little older, but still relevant.
> 
> 
> Here are some excerpts from the Harvard Legal Review article cited on this page (http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/legal/):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...


Wow!  Thank you for taking the time to wade through their garbage to find this.  I hope other "libertarians" who have been cheerleading the woman in the OP video read this.  Nobody puts that much effort into highlighting a "problem" without proposing their own "solution".

----------


## jmdrake

> Hey, I understand.  If you're ever not kidding, then hit me up.  Not sure where you are in Tennessee, but I still have to take my wife to the Ryman.  Be glad to say hello if you're on the way.


Cool!  I'm in Nashville.  I was at the Ryman once when John McCain was running for president.  Two of my Ron Paul buddies and I had planned to ask him some uncomfortable questions.  We were in three different mic lines.  All three of us had gotten to a mic when the question period was stopped.    I'm pretty sure it was coincidence.  I'd hate to think the opposition is that good.  Then again two of us had been vocal at local GOP meetings by that point, so maybe we were recognized.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

LOL thanks everyone, I wasn't trying to turn this into a find-a-date thread, I was just remarking how when 'women in general' tell men how to act, especially when they want men to act all un-man-like it's, bull$#@!.  Pure unmitigated bull$#@!. I speak not as someone who has ignored their 'advice' all my life, I speak as someone who has taken their 'advice' all of my life and it was probably the worst decision of my life.  And because I want to see MORE liberty babies and not LESS, I was just passing on my experience to the younger crowd to not make my same mistake.

----------


## kahless

> It seems like in the $#@!hole that is NYC and the other east coast cities, saying hello is forbidden.


The woman in the video said she had been groped the month before and squeezed in the past. Is it really all that bad for women to have a campaign for a little respect and personal space?

They probably could have done better by interviewing women that had been on the receiving end of more aggressive men, that have been surrounded, blocked, touched, groped or threatened.  They have 10 hours of video so maybe there is worse to come.

----------


## pessimist

I watched the video, and sadly that is just part of living in a big city.

However, some of that was potentially dangerous. The highly confident, self-assured, smooth operator jiving beside her for 10 mins was a little frightening. There was genuine fear in her eyes.

----------


## pessimist

I’ve been thinking about this whole Alpha male confidence thing, and I do see where some of you guys are coming from. However, there are different kinds of confidence.  

A handsome guy will KNOW that he is good looking. How does he know this? Women constantly fall all over him. He can get laid at will. However, he may have the personality of a snail; he may not be able to hold their attention. He may feel inadequate around other men who are more charismatic.

A smart, funny guy who doesn’t have the movie star or model good looks or the bulging muscles, may feel physically inferior to the more larger dominate man. However, he too can be confident and even arrogant- he may be able to hold the attention of a woman, make her laugh, and KNOW that he is a lot smarter than dudes around him.

A wealthy guy can make a man of any persuasion feel inferior purely from his material wealth and social status. Bill Gates can make even the most stereotypically alpha male feel a little bit inadequate.

Then there are the sociopaths- the smooth talking, glib, narcissistic, and often (good looking) dudes. They can be wealthy, charming, and turn nearly every woman around them on. However, a lot of them cannot maintain a relationship, and the ones who do, end up cheating repeatedly on their wives and girlfriends and generally treat them like garbage or neglect them.

This leads to the degenerate bad boy types- they know how to get laid, but it is mostly low class women attracted to them. Sure, a woman may have some fantasy about the 'bad boy' type, but would never actually date one.  

Let’s not forget the gold diggers (they are actually a real thing)- they marry wealthy, ugly incompatible guys but have romance novel fantasies of the hunky construction worker or the aforementioned pool boy coming to sweep her off her feet. *Or* they just carrying on an affair with their "gay best friend".

So yeah, it's a lot more complicated than simply attitude, imo.

----------


## presence

> They probably could have done better by interviewing women that had been on the receiving end of more aggressive men, that have been surrounded, blocked, touched, groped or threatened.  They have 10 hours of video so maybe there is worse to come.


surrounded assault
blocked assault
touched battery
groped battery
threatened assault

catcalled LIBERTY

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

People here are wondering if there is more to the video.  No, there is nothing more.  The savvy marketing company edited the best footage.  Note, for example, that you don't see any footage from tourist spots or Wall Street because the finance guys wouldn't give that woman the time of day.

The woman claimed the majority of response has been positive, but it's interesting how they disabled the voting views on the Youtube video.  I'd bet that they increased the _thumbs up_ votes with a lot of false votes (people have asked me to do this type of thing in my work), but even that would not be enough to overshadow negative votes.  The voting is one aspect that the marketing company or Hollaback could not spin, so they just disabled the voting feature.

----------


## Philhelm

> LOL thanks everyone, I wasn't trying to turn this into a find-a-date thread, I was just remarking how when 'women in general' tell men how to act, especially when they want men to act all un-man-like it's, bull$#@!.  Pure unmitigated bull$#@!. I speak not as someone who has ignored their 'advice' all my life, I speak as someone who has taken their 'advice' all of my life and it was probably the worst decision of my life.  And because I want to see MORE liberty babies and not LESS, I was just passing on my experience to the younger crowd to not make my same mistake.


Exactly.  A fisherman should never ask a fish how to catch other fish.

LOL - They were unintentionally snipping your balls in this thread.  Telling someone of the certainty that a nice girl (probably unattractive) will come along one day translates to:  "You're screwed but I don't want to hurt your feelings."

----------


## Philhelm

> I’ve been thinking about this whole Alpha male confidence thing, and I do see where some of you guys are coming from. However, there are different kinds of confidence.  
> 
> A handsome guy will KNOW that he is good looking. How does he know this? Women constantly fall all over him. He can get laid at will. However, he may have the personality of a snail; he may not be able to hold their attention. He may feel inadequate around other men who are more charismatic.
> 
> A smart, funny guy who doesn’t have the movie star or model good looks or the bulging muscles, may feel physically inferior to the more larger dominate man. However, he too can be confident and even arrogant- he may be able to hold the attention of a woman, make her laugh, and KNOW that he is a lot smarter than dudes around him.
> 
> A wealthy guy can make a man of any persuasion feel inferior purely from his material wealth and social status. Bill Gates can make even the most stereotypically alpha male feel a little bit inadequate.
> 
> Then there are the sociopaths- the smooth talking, glib, narcissistic, and often (good looking) dudes. They can be wealthy, charming, and turn nearly every woman around them on. However, a lot of them cannot maintain a relationship, and the ones who do, end up cheating repeatedly on their wives and girlfriends and generally treat them like garbage or neglect them.
> ...


Now you're catching on.  But remember, everyone has Alpha and Beta traits, so it's more of a spectrum than a binary situation.  Also, a Beta isn't necessarily a pathetic loser that can't get women and lives in his mom's basement playing World of Warcraft (or whatever stereotype you want to conjure).  That would be more of an Omega.  Also, it is possible for a Beta to become an Alpha or even for an Alpha to become a Beta (marriage, for instance).  I would actually consider myself to be Beta Prime.  I've "slain" a decent number of women, but I have neurotic tendencies and don't approach life with the confident surety that the Alpha does.  If I could make more money, get jacked, and convince my wife to have a threesome, I would probably be nudged up to Alpha.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The woman in the video said she had been groped the month before and squeezed in the past. Is it really all that bad for women to have a campaign for a little respect and personal space?
> 
> They probably could have done better by interviewing women that had been on the receiving end of more aggressive men, that have been surrounded, blocked, touched, groped or threatened.  They have 10 hours of video so maybe there is worse to come.


Why do we keep conflating actual *physical* harassment with cat-calling?  They are two very different things, and the distinction needs to be made clear.  The video doesn't discuss physical harassment because the people who made it are after the cat-callers, the non-violent ones.  Here we are just buying the idea that cat-calling is somehow the same thing as being groped/assaulted on the street.  It's not and it needs to stop.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I watched the video, and sadly that is just part of living in a big city.
> 
> However, some of that was potentially dangerous. The highly confident, self-assured, smooth operator jiving beside her for 10 mins was a little frightening. There was genuine fear in her eyes.


I highly doubt that she was afraid.  She had people watching her.  If she wanted him to go away, she should have said something to him.  Most women would say something to someone who was walking right beside her, but she didn't so we can't compare this to a normal situation.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> If she wanted him to go away, she should have said something to him.  Most women would say something to someone who was walking right beside her, but she didn't so we can't compare this to a normal situation.



She did answer to him in the negative (twice), but they conveniently omitted her dialogue in the caption.  She also practically whispers "no" so that the microphone won't pick it up.  That particular encounter ended there, so it looks like a simple response from her was more than enough to deter his bungling approach.

The rest of the video was guys quickly walking by her, a few street vendors hustling business, and blobs who couldn't get off their chairs if the city was on fire.

The only other one who followed her was some incompetent African guy who looked like he hadn't eaten for a week.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Well, I will say that half of my offer with nieces had an ulterior motive.  My wife plays matchmaker, so it's a good chance to unload some expenses.  If you marry a girl overseas, then you're likely to share in some of her family's cost. *:-/*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> She did answer to him in the negative (twice), but they conveniently omitted her dialogue in the caption.  She also practically whispers "no" so that the microphone won't pick it up.  That particular encounter ended there, so it looks like a simple response from her was more than enough to deter his bungling approach.
> 
> The rest of the video was guys quickly walking by her, a few street vendors hustling business, and blobs who couldn't get off their chairs if the city was on fire.
> 
> The only other one who followed her was some incompetent African guy who looked like he hadn't eaten for a week.


Yes, obviously people in the city will not be afraid to tell people off if they feel uncomfortable, so the fact that she didn't do that was very unusual.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, I will say that half of my offer with nieces had an ulterior motive.  My wife plays matchmaker, so it's a good chance to unload some expenses.  *If you marry a girl overseas, then you're likely to share in some of her family's cost.* *:-/*


What makes you say that?

----------


## juleswin

> She did answer to him in the negative (twice), but they conveniently omitted her dialogue in the caption.  She also practically whispers "no" so that the microphone won't pick it up.  That particular encounter ended there, so it looks like a simple response from her was more than enough to deter his bungling approach.
> 
> The rest of the video was guys quickly walking by her, a few street vendors hustling business, and blobs who couldn't get off their chairs if the city was on fire.
> 
> The only other one who followed her was some incompetent African guy who looked like he hadn't eaten for a week.


My god, you say some really ignorant and prejudiced things in this thread.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> What makes you say that?



Because I do it.  People I know do it.

Edit: I realize I made a blanket statement.  Depends on the country mostly.  Maybe the girl.  

Did you pick a country for your next endeavor yet?






> My god, you say some really ignorant and prejudiced things in this thread.



Geez dude, are you really that dense in recognizing the sarcastic indictment of another's actions?

I'm actually citing what Hollaback did and their entirely prejudiced attitude.  Their whole charade was nothing more than baiting the idle, the unemployed, and some half-wits.  Subtleness is quite the charm to fool even people like you. 

They had to be careful not to take it too far though.  They could have gone for more hyperbole, but it was too risky.  If they could have hidden her hands from the camera, then she would have substituted one those microphones with a can of Colt 45. 

Get it?  Colt 45?  Because you know that Colt 45 is marketed to black people.  Anything else I should spell out for you?






.

----------


## juleswin

> Edit: I realize I made a blanket statement.  Depends on the country mostly.  Maybe the girl.  
> Like what?






> The only other one who followed her was some* incompetent African guy who looked like he hadn't eaten for a week.*





> The woman in the video is a *disgusting slob*.  Dollars to donuts says she would support new legislation to stop what happened in the video. 
> 
> She squeezes her thunder thighs into her high school pants.  She then *complains when she attracts the economic and racial class* of man mostly *likely to lick his lips when viewing large drumsticks.* 
> 
> Her expression at video's end says it all.  She did not attract the type of man she wants.  Instead of, however, *taking her fat can to the gym*, she'll stick it to her female competition and punish the men who dared think they are in her league.
> 
> The entire project is quite the double-edged sword for her.  She had to attract the *colored man and various social degenerates to make her point*; however, her self-image takes a large hit when she recognizes her look will attract her nothing better than those men in the video.
> 
> Furthermore, her organization cites racism, while also* baiting the stupid black man into their little game*.  Disgusting pigs.





> Well, I will say that half of my offer with nieces had an ulterior motive. My wife plays matchmaker, so it's a good chance to unload some expenses.* If you marry a girl overseas, then you're likely to share in some of her family's cost*. :-/


I know you'll probably think the only reason why he had a problem with those lines is because he is black and from overseas but its not it. You made a lot speculations which nobody can tell from watching the video. And just the tone was very condescending and belittling of these men whose only crime was behaving in a way you disapproved off. And to the lady in the video, Its very possible that she might be some radical feminist but how do you know what kind of men she is looking for? how do you know she is a slob? and thunder thighs?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> And just the tone was very condescending and belittling of these men whose only crime was behaving in a way you disapproved off.



Uh, I've made multiple posts how I disapprove of the Hollaback's actions because they are simply taking advantage of people.  They did little more than modify The Tuskegee Experiment into a social version that--if they have their way--would have a lot of these guinea pig men convicted of a crime.

The African guy is inept, as is most of the buffoonery in this video.  If it weren't for this organization trying to pass laws, then this entire campaign would be 100% laughable.   








> You made a lot speculations which nobody can tell from watching the video.


Have you done anything else besides watch the video, or are you one of these internet windbags who likes to hear himself talk?

I'm not speculating on anything.  Have you seen any interviews with this woman?  Dig a little deeper.  Have you even looked at Hollaback's website or read any of the things I posted from their website?

----------


## juleswin

> The African guy is inept, as *is most of the buffoonery in this video*.  If it weren't for this organization trying to pass laws, then this entire campaign would be 100% laughable.   
> Have you done anything else besides watch the video, or are you one of these internet windbags who likes to hear himself talk?
> 
> I'm not speculating on anything.  Have you seen any interviews with this woman?  Dig a little deeper.  Have you even looked at Hollaback's website or read any of the things I posted from their website?


And there it is again in your reply. What buffoonery are you talking about? Someone taking a chance even if you think its a long chance at getting a girl? I am sure you live in a very small all American town where everybody knows each other. A town small enough that if you saw a girl walking down the street and think you want to chat up with her, the only thing you need to do is ask the nice church lady and they will tell you her name and number. Ever wonder what you consider buffoonery is just people having a different approach to courtship than you? You don't have to insult them all for going about their own way. 

I have only watched the video in the OP but I seriously doubt the woman talked about the type of men he was into in any interview you watched or you read anything about the dietary record of the incompetent African guy. Also, I don't need to watch any extra video or read interview transcripts to know that you were really reaching and needlessly insulting to the men and woman in your critiques from your posts that I highlighted.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

This is spawning more copies...

The porn star cat-calling men (asking about their 401k as well as their abs)







And then there is a Drag Queen walking 10 hours on the streets of LA...

----------


## Suzanimal

> This is spawning more copies...
> 
> And then there is a Drag Queen walking 10 hours on the streets of LA...


 "Damn, that girl's got hair on her legs!"

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> What buffoonery are you talking about?


The buffoonery is Hollaback's suggestion that these guys are potential Charles Mansons worthy of a misdemeanor. 





> I am sure you live in a very small all American town


Well, you'd be wrong.  Who's speculating now?




> ...people having a different approach to courtship than you?


I'm guessing that walking in someone's personal space for five minutes without saying anything isn't cultural diversity, but hey, I'm just speculating. 





> I seriously doubt the woman talked about the type of men he was into...


She's obviously not into any of these guys.  She did however, say that she often walks around smiling and trying to "attract."  Will part two of this campaign be a _How to Attract Guys_ video on Wall Street?  






> you read anything about the dietary record of the incompetent African guy


.

I need a textbook to figure out a guy is skinny? 






> needlessly insulting to the men and woman in your critiques from your posts that I highlighted



The Haile Selassie street vendor was pretty funny:  "I just found a thousand dollas."  I think his humor would actually be a good match for this serious woman.  You know--opposites attract & all.

----------


## kahless

> Why do we keep conflating actual *physical* harassment with cat-calling?  They are two very different things, and the distinction needs to be made clear.  The video doesn't discuss physical harassment because the people who made it are after the cat-callers, the non-violent ones.  Here we are just buying the idea that cat-calling is somehow the same thing as being groped/assaulted on the street.  It's not and it needs to stop.


I watched her interviews and read several articles which she says she was groped the month prior to this video.  You seem to have this old fashioned view of cat-calling and maybe a West Virginia view of cat-calling -- some guys whistling from a far and throwing in some compliments which most women do not fear nor give a damn about.  This is not West Virginia, this is NYC where it takes on a whole new meaning.  Women being followed and harassed is a bit different.

----------


## juleswin

> The buffoonery is Hollaback's suggestion that these guys are potential Charles Mansons worthy of a misdemeanor.


You talked about the buffoonery in the video not one suggested by hollaback org outside of the video. So was that a typo? 




> Well, you'd be wrong.  Who's speculating now?


Apologizes, I meant to say "I am guessing" not "I am sure"




> I'm guessing that walking in someone's personal space for five minutes without saying anything isn't cultural diversity, but hey, I'm just speculating.


He wanted to get an answer from her. He probably was operating on the assumption that she was a normal person acting the way normal people act when people are talking to them and not someone trying to pull a video prank on him. My guess is that the unnaturally behavior of the lady played into him walking beside her for 5mins which btw is not a crime in NY city. Its not cultural anything, it has more to do with someone determined enough with enough free time to boot playing the mating game out. He was not aggressive with her or really threaten safety in anyway. Also nobody has that big of a personal space in NY. 




> She's obviously not into any of these guys.  She did however, say that she often walks around smiling and trying to "attract."  Will part two of this campaign be a _How to Attract Guys_ video on Wall Street?


Maybe, but how did you come to the conclusion (and I am paraphrasing here) that she complains when she attracts the wrong economic and racial class? The whole point of the experiment was to walk around and get reaction from men. Even if she found someone interesting, she would still have had to remain in character to complete the filming



> I need a textbook to figure out a guy is skinny?


You said he was inept and  incompetent person who hasn't eat for a week. The inept and incompetent is really why I highlighted that part. Generally, people tend to assume skinny people are all starving but we are not all starving. I am 6'6 and weigh a bit above 190 lbs and I am damn sure that I am not anywhere close to starving. If anything, I need to cut back on my food intake. So especially in the states, being skinny doesn't tell you anything about the person's diet.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> So was that a typo?


The entire video is something I'd expect to see in high school.  It's a joke.  Unfortunately, the joke is on the guys.  The future punch line is them being arrested for failing to attract.   






> He probably was operating on the assumption...





> My guess is that...



Okay, you just said I was speculating, but now you're doing it yourself.






> ...nobody has that big of a personal space in NY.


I lived right in New York City five years.  It's true that a person does not have that big a personal space during 5th Ave rush hour.  A person does however, have that personal space as it took place in the video.  He was too close.






> Even if she found someone interesting, she would still have had to remain in character to complete the filming


Why?  What's going to stop her?  She said she used her acting skills to do the video.  The video is a very slick marketing production.  They edited out most everything.  What's to stop her from saying hello to Mr. Wall Street. and then proceeding with the video?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I watched her interviews and read several articles which she says she was groped the month prior to this video.



Can you share that?  The only thing from her I find is how she was sexually assaulted in the past.  The only specific she gives is that her "side has been squeezed."  Is her side being squeezed the type of sexual assault to which she refers?  Her view of harassment does not fit the statutory definition of harassment as even acknowledged by Hollaback's research, so what is her definition of sexual assault?  A legal one? Something else?

Here is what I found from her:





> “This is a typical day, and it doesn’t even illustrate everything that happens, it doesn’t show the times in the past that I’ve been — my side has been squeezed or — that was just a single day,” she noted. “It brings up memories of my past. I’ve experienced sexual assault, unfortunately, in my past.”



So is she distinguishing between the squeeze and another incident?  What is the context of the squeeze?  I have been on crowded subways in New York a number of times where it's so crowed that a person's side hip is touching your rear.  And I don't mean slightly brushing.  It's so crowed that they're into you pretty good.  And the person rubbing into me was never one of those runway models either.

----------


## juleswin

> Okay, you just said I was speculating, but now you're doing it yourself.


Speculating in of itself is not a bad thing. Doing it with little evidence to back it up just to insult and demean people is what I have a problem with. Also, I made it clear that I was speculating and not speaking as if what I am saying is a fact from the words I used. In fact I am 99% sure that he did not know that he was being prank and filmed. He most likely thought he was dealing with a normal person not an actor in a public performance. I worded my sentence in that manner because there is still a small chance that he knew what was going on and still tried to pick her up.




> I lived right in New York City five years.  It's true that a person does not have that big a personal space during 5th Ave rush hour.  A person does however, have that personal space as it took place in the video.  He was too close.


Nonsense, he gave her enough space perfectly normal to give strangers you happen to walk with on the street. Oh well, this is it for me, you are not answering the questions I'd like you to answer and for the questions you answer, I am not getting straight answers from u.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...you are not answering the questions I'd like you to answer and for the questions you answer, I am not getting straight answers from u.



What questions did I not answer?  I think the woman is a slob.  That's my opinion.  I think the whole video is a charade, something with which you apparently agree because you called it a prank.  The woman said the majority response is positive, but there is no evidence of that in the _thumbs up-thumbs down_ Youtube vote.  Their website is full of solutions, the legal ones of which I documented.  I questioned whether she got even got sexually assaulted because there is no evidence.  What else?

Seems to me I've thoroughly looked into this a lot more than you because all you did was watch the video once or twice.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Nonsense, he gave her enough space perfectly normal to give strangers you happen to walk with on the street.


I disagree.  There is research on personal space that defines distance, type of person, and situation.  These things have been measured.  I say he is in her space (the African guy, not the other guy).

Some of what I documented is backed by evidence.  Some is opinion based on observation.  Some people like a fat butt in jeans.  Some people prefer a little more subtleness.  Women play on those things.  And what were those tits?  Double DD?  Seems some of those guys prefer a big rump to breasts.  So what?  Do you need a peer reviewed study?

You said the whole thing was a prank, and I said it was slick marketing.  What's so hard to believe that someone is not manipulating every possible variable to get the desired response?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Question for you, Juleswin:

Replace all the video guys with good looking guys.  Like the guy in the parody video.   Same comments.  You telling me that girl's underwear is not going to be drenched after 10 hours?

And frankly, yes, some of these guys are nitwits.  The guy is going to demand that somebody thank him for making a compliment?  That's your idea of someone's courtship behavior?

----------


## juleswin

> I disagree.  There is research on personal space that defines distance, type of person, and situation.  These things have been measured.  I say he is in her space (the African guy, not the other guy).
> 
> Some of what I documented is backed by evidence.  Some is opinion based on observation.  Some people like a fat butt in jeans.  Some people prefer a little more subtleness.  Women play on those things.  And what were those tits?  Double DD?  Seems some of those guys prefer a big rump to breasts.  So what?  Do you need a peer reviewed study?
> 
> You said the whole thing was a prank, and I said it was slick marketing.  What's so hard to believe that someone is not manipulating every possible variable to get the desired response?


Yea, I bet its the kind of research that believes in things like the male gaze as an invasion of women's privacy. I am sorry but nobody in the video invaded her personal space. Did some some of them make her uncomfortable? sure. People always get uncomfortable whenever a member of the opposite sex who they are not attracted to hit on them. Its just life, that doesn't mean anyone has invaded her personal space. And what if the fella following her just happened to be heading that direction? do you think he should be forced to speed up, slow down or find a different route just because she happened to be uncomfortable with sharing the public path with him?

Sorry but a lot of things you said did not have any thing but flimsy evidence backing them up. Also you said the lady was fat and had thunder thighs. I know those features are relative depending on who is looking, but she is not fat by any reasonable standards, neither can you categorize those thighs as thunder thighs. I think you only said that because of what you think her motives is. I won't win this argument with you but I really really don't think she is fat and I don't think you truly believe it yourself. You probably got annoyed at the whole incident and wanted to blow off steam by calling people names. 




> Question for you, Juleswin:
> Replace all the video guys with good looking guys.  Like the guy in the parody video.   Same comments.  You telling me that girl's underwear is not going to be drenched after 10 hours?
> 
> And frankly, yes, some of these guys are nitwits.  The guy is going to demand that somebody thank him for making a compliment?  That's your idea of someone's courtship behavior?


Maybe she will get very excited had all those men hitting on her had been beefcakes like the ones in the parody but she still wouldn't break character if she was a good actress. Its like a candid camera show, you break character before the punchline and you will need to run your experiment/prank in a different part of town. And I don't the feminist head honcho running the experiment would be too happy to hear that.

I think the demand from that one guy that she thanked him wasn't serious, could be just playful banter or just NY street culture. That doesn't make him a nitwit. Maybe if he had ran up to her and demanded she thanked him, them I would consider him a nitwit. Also, watching the video again, most of the men weren't even serious in their catcalling. Their calls were similar to what you or I would do when we see a nice car drive by (and no, I am not necessarily comparing a woman to an object, just making an analogy). Its just an acknowledgement of something nice, doesn't mean they will like to come and sit in it or test drive it if given the chance. It just people trying to be nice

The guy that came up to her and asked "Do you think I am ugly" is participating in the courtship ritual. He is testing the water, trying to see what would make her talk to him. Nothing worked and he politely backed off, there is nothing nitwit or abnormal about his approach.

----------


## thoughtomator

Even the hard lefties have already figured out that this video is a troll (they even use that word, specifically).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11879431

Even they couldn't help but notice that it makes out black guys to be specifically scary, so their racism attunement has kicked in and they are throwing tight-sweater-chick under the bus.

----------


## jmdrake

> I watched her interviews and read several articles which she says she was groped the month prior to this video.  You seem to have this old fashioned view of cat-calling and maybe a West Virginia view of cat-calling -- some guys whistling from a far and throwing in some compliments which most women do not fear nor give a damn about.  This is not West Virginia, this is NYC where it takes on a whole new meaning.  Women being followed and harassed is a bit different.


If she was groped, she should have filed charges for being *groped*.  And most of the guys in the video that this drama queen was complaining about *were* just whistling from a far or throwing out compliments or even saying "Good evening"!  That's right.  Saying "good evening" is something this silly woman wants laws passed against!  And as for the guy following her, what kind of law would you draft against that?  If a man walks beside a woman for more than 30 seconds charge him with a crime?

----------


## jmdrake

> Even the hard lefties have already figured out that this video is a troll (they even use that word, specifically).
> 
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/11879431
> 
> Even they couldn't help but notice that it makes out black guys to be specifically scary, so their racism attunement has kicked in and they are throwing tight-sweater-chick under the bus.


Maybe she'll have better luck at Stormfart.

----------


## kahless

> If she was groped, she should have filed charges for being *groped*.


You say that now but I suspect if the video showed women getting their butts pinched or grabbed or were groped, you and a couple others here would probably be posting saying it is only a natural mating dance and that the woman are Progressive bitches for filing charges.




> And most of the guys in the video that this drama queen was complaining about *were* just whistling from a far or throwing out compliments or even saying "Good evening"!  That's right.  Saying "good evening" is something this silly woman wants laws passed against!  And as for the guy following her, what kind of law would you draft against that?  If a man walks beside a woman for more than 30 seconds charge him with a crime?


Show me where they are promoting any form of legislation.  Maybe there is some conspiracy like that waiting in the wings but I do not see or have read that yet. 

He walked beside her for 5 minutes not just 30 seconds.  I think some women are not going to be able to feel they have the ability to handle the situation should it escalate to something more sinister and sucks for them having to be afraid taking a walk from point A to point B.  So I see no harm done promoting a campaign for a bit of civility.

----------


## kahless

> Even the hard lefties have already figured out that this video is a troll (they even use that word, specifically).
> 
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/11879431
> 
> *Even they couldn't help but notice that it makes out black guys to be specifically scary, so their racism attunement has kicked in and they are throwing tight-sweater-chick under the bus*.


If there was a video showing reverse racism they would still deny it is existed or say something like it is impossible for people of color to be racist.

More politically correct BS.  What do you think the demographics are in NYC.  I find myself the white minority frequently when walking in the city and up here in the burbs.  It would be difficult to find as many white guys doing this simply because there is not that many on the street and then you have the cultural differences where this behavior is more common and over the top with these demographic groups.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/5n...zed-atmosphere This is probably the best catcalling video that avoids the racialized politics of the video in the OP, and there's some humor to it as well.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Because I do it.  People I know do it.
> 
> Edit: I realize I made a blanket statement.  Depends on the country mostly.  Maybe the girl.  
> 
> Did you pick a country for your next endeavor yet?


I'm not quite clear on the meaning of "I do it."  You marry girls from foreign countries?  Regularly?

I also wasn't sure if you were referring to me or not.  FYI, I'm pretty settled on China right now.  I'm not disagreeing, just wondering what experience you have with this.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I watched her interviews and read several articles which she says she was groped the month prior to this video.  You seem to have this old fashioned view of cat-calling and maybe a West Virginia view of cat-calling -- some guys whistling from a far and throwing in some compliments which most women do not fear nor give a damn about.  This is not West Virginia, this is NYC where it takes on a whole new meaning.  Women being followed and harassed is a bit different.


Damn, dude.  It doesn't take a city slicker to tell what was happening in the video.  What happened was not physical assault and we need to stop acting like they're the same thing.  If that woman suffered actual assault, that still doesn't mean we should treat cat-calling like it's the same thing.  Why are you acting like cat-calling is dangerous?  

The law prohibits assault, but this is NOT assault.  So stop acting like they're the same thing.  It doesn't matter what happened in the months prior to this video.  What happened in the video is not the same thing as what happened in the months prior.  It doesn't matter where I'm from because I've been to the city and I've studied constitutional law and the big problem I'm seeing is that you can't seem to tell the difference between yelling comments on the street and being groped/harassed.  Are you even willing to admit there is a difference?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You say that now but I suspect if the video showed women getting their butts pinched or grabbed or were groped, you and a couple others here would probably be posting saying it is only a natural mating dance and that the woman are Progressive bitches for filing charges.


So you have to resort to what we would hypothetically say in a different, hypothetical situation to make your point?  Sorry, but you don't get to use things that aren't real against us.

Show me where they are promoting any form of legislation.  Maybe there is some conspiracy like that waiting in the wings but I do not see or have read that yet. 




> *He walked beside her for 5 minutes not just 30 seconds.*  I think some women are not going to be able to feel they have the ability to handle the situation should it escalate to something more sinister and sucks for them having to be afraid taking a walk from point A to point B.  So I see no harm done promoting a campaign for a bit of civility.


Why didn't she tell him to go away?  

And what exactly is this campaign you speak of?  What would this campaign do?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Yea, I bet its the kind of research that believes in things like the male gaze as an invasion of women's privacy.


Not really, but you might want to look it all up before betting.  It would take about 5 seconds.  Personal space is a common area of study in the social sciences.






> ...do you think he should be forced to speed up, slow down or find a different route just because she happened to be uncomfortable with sharing the public path with him?


I don't think he should be forced to do anything.  If he wants to pick up girls though, then that's not going to get it done.







> Sorry but a lot of things you said did not have any thing but flimsy evidence backing them up.


Americans are always relying on the book.  Use your common sense.  Some people like a fat rump and some people don't.






> ...I don't think you truly believe it yourself.


No, I believe it, but it looks like she does not believe it herself.  Americans are now so objectively fat that the normal person of 50 years ago is now considered skinny.






> The guy that came up to her and asked "Do you think I am ugly" is participating in the courtship ritual. He is testing the water, trying to see what would make her talk to him. Nothing worked and he politely backed off, there is nothing nitwit or abnormal about his approach.


Well, I suppose if you're in a cartoon, then his approach would be fairly normal.








.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I'm not quite clear on the meaning of "I do it."  You marry girls from foreign countries?  Regularly?



Heh heh, no, I only married once and that's it.  I'm saying that if you marry a girl from another country, then you might expect to pay some of her family's expenses.  Might be medical.  Might be food.  Could be for emergencies.  Might be regular or irregular.  Could depend on the country.  Just depends.  

That's my experience and the experience of others I know.  That's all I was saying.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, I suppose if you're in a cartoon, then his approach would be fairly normal.
> .


It doesn't have to be normal.  It just has to, y' know, NOT be assault, which it isn't.

----------


## thoughtomator

> http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/5n...zed-atmosphere This is probably the best catcalling video that avoids the racialized politics of the video in the OP, and there's some humor to it as well.


The radicalized politics are there, they're just not as up-front as the "10 hours" troll.

If men made a video about the $#@!ty things women feel entitled to do to us, we'd be crucified, not considered funny. But women can tee off on men all day and even double down on it after a deception is exposed, and it's all fair.

One thing that strikes me as particularly ironic is the focus on construction workers - who are, apparently, exclusively male. So the men who build these cities that women enjoy so much get no credit for the grueling and often dangerous work they do, but God forbid they engage in an ages-old courting ritual...

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> It doesn't have to be normal.



And *that* is what is really happening.  The only women complaining about catcalls to the point of legislation are miffed because they can't cut it with the top guys.  If you want to see real competition, then forget the Olympics.  Women are the biggest bitch competitors of all-time.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

+ rep to the OP.  The more I watch this video, the funnier it gets.



"Hey, looky there.  I just found a thousand dollars."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And *that* is what is really happening.  The only women complaining about catcalls to the point of legislation are miffed because they can't cut it with the top guys.  If you want to see real competition, then forget the Olympics.  Women are the biggest bitch competitors of all-time.


This is confusing.  You and juleswin seem to be on the same side, so I can't figure out what your actual message is.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> This is confusing.  You and juleswin seem to be on the same side, so I can't figure out what your actual message is.



Yeah, I think Juleswin and I are on the same side.  He's just mad because my taste in women is more refined.  And, I have better dating skills.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> This is confusing.  You and juleswin seem to be on the same side, so I can't figure out what your actual message is.


They _are_ basically on the same side.  I'm not sure _they_ know what they are actually arguing about, but whatever it is I am equally sure that it is extremely important to them.

----------


## Suzanimal

> They _are_ basically on the same side.  I'm not sure _they_ know what they are actually arguing about, but whatever it is I am equally sure that it is extremely important to them.



That's the impression I got as well.

----------


## kahless

> Damn, dude.  It doesn't take a city slicker to tell what was happening in the video.  What happened was not physical assault and we need to stop acting like they're the same thing.  If that woman suffered actual assault, that still doesn't mean we should treat cat-calling like it's the same thing.  Why are you acting like cat-calling is dangerous?  
> 
> The law prohibits assault, but this is NOT assault.  So stop acting like they're the same thing.  It doesn't matter what happened in the months prior to this video.  What happened in the video is not the same thing as what happened in the months prior.  It doesn't matter where I'm from because I've been to the city and I've studied constitutional law and the big problem I'm seeing is that you can't seem to tell the difference between yelling comments on the street and being groped/harassed.  Are you even willing to admit there is a difference?


I never said it was physical assault. I think when people hear the term "cat-calling" the impression is a bunch of guys behind a fence whistling and yelling compliments from a construction site.  This video shows it is more upfront and personal in NYC.  There are personal space issues that make women nervous since sometimes it leads to more than what happened in the video.

These women are getting together sharing their stores (some stories far worse than the video) and are trying to start a dialogue to say hey this stuff sometimes scares the crap out of us since we never know if it is going to lead to something far worse.  It is astonishing you cannot see that but I think you are so completely blinded by partisan style politics everything is black and white for you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I never said it was physical assault. I think when people hear the term "cat-calling" the impression is a bunch of guys behind a fence whistling and yelling compliments from a construction site.  This video shows it is more upfront and personal in NYC.  There are personal space issues that make women nervous since sometimes it leads to more than what happened in the video.
> 
> These women are getting together sharing their stores (some stories far worse than the video) and are trying to start a dialogue to say hey this stuff sometimes scares the crap out of us since we never know if it is going to lead to something far worse.  It is astonishing you cannot see that but I think you are so completely blinded by partisan style politics everything is black and white for you.


Their 'dialogue' seems to include pressing for a man calling "Good morning!" to a woman to be locked up in jail.  It should come as no surprise, then, that their 'dialogue' is ridiculed around here and many places around the datasphere.

----------


## kahless

> Their 'dialogue' seems to include pressing for a man calling "Good morning!" to a woman to be locked up in jail.  It should come as no surprise, then, that their 'dialogue' is ridiculed around here and many places around the datasphere.


I do not know what is sadder, you making this partisan believing that people are actually calling for that or that you are unable to see what I described on my post you quoted.

That is not to say I am not as skeptical as you and others here that anytime we see anything in the media go viral that we think there is likely some hidden political motivations behind it that will eventually result in pushing for some form of legislation.  In this case, so far that does not appear to be the case and perhaps these are women honestly trying to raise awareness and have a dialogue, having been victims of far worse.

----------


## jmdrake

> You say that now but I suspect if the video showed women getting their butts pinched or grabbed or were groped, you and a couple others here would probably be posting saying it is only a natural mating dance and that the woman are Progressive bitches for filing charges.


So making baseless accusations is your debate tactic now?    If you are going to equate someone saying "Hey there.  You look like $1,000.00" and someone physically putting their hands on someone else then please find a way to get off of jury duty.  Or if I have some baseless sexual harassment lawsuit I hope I can get someone as biased as you on the jury.  "Ladies an gentlemen of the jury.  He admitted telling her she had on a nice outfit.  It's just one small step from that to him grabbing her butt."




> Show me where they are promoting any form of legislation.  Maybe there is some conspiracy like that waiting in the wings but I do not see or have read that yet.


That has been posted several times in this thread from the website of the organization promoting the video.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5688028

Pay attention next time before you run your mouth again.




> He walked beside her for 5 minutes not just 30 seconds.  I think some women are not going to be able to feel they have the ability to handle the situation should it escalate to something more sinister and sucks for them having to be afraid taking a walk from point A to point B.  So I see no harm done promoting a campaign for a bit of civility.


And so what's the cut off before a woman can file charges against someone for walking beside her but otherwise not doing anything to her?  Oh that's right.  You think those of us who are quoting the website of the feminazis who want to pass new laws about this are spouting "conspiracy theories".  Whatever.  Take some time to inform  yourself and drop the attitude before responding.

----------


## jmdrake

> I do not know what is sadder, you making this partisan believing that people are actually calling for that or that you are unable to see what I described on my post you quoted.


What's "sadder" is you attempting to participate in a thread without actually informing yourself about what you side is asking for.

From "ihollerback.org".

*The author's sample statute:

"It shall be a misdemeanor...to engage in street harassment...

Street harassment occurs...with language...that is...implicitly sexual. Such language includes...reference... to the target...as the object of sexual desire." (page 575)*

Edit: And here's more on the "legal remedies" being sought.

_Many states currently have harassment laws on the books that may prove helpful to combating street harassment, and in some cases state stalking laws may also prove beneficial. However, it will continue to be a difficult battle, as the legal remedy represents but a small point in the larger, underlying issues that swirl around street harassment, namely, the intersections of power, identities, conditions, systems, policies, and practices. A paradigm shift must occur, and society must change its conception of violence and women and female-identified persons, in general. Reproductive justice is not only a women’s right issue, or a LGBT issue, it is holistically a civil and human rights issue. Street harassment is thus definitively a reproductive justice issue that deserves immediate attention from grassroots organizers, advocates, lawmakers, academics, and judges._

Now repeat this 1,000 times until it sticks in your head.  The people pushing this want new laws.  The people pushing this want new laws.

----------


## thoughtomator

> I do not know what is sadder, you making this partisan believing that people are actually calling for that or that you are unable to see what I described on my post you quoted.
> 
> That is not to say I am not as skeptical as you and others here that anytime we see anything in the media go viral that we think there is likely some hidden political motivations behind it that will eventually result in pushing for some form of legislation.  In this case, so far that does not appear to be the case and perhaps these are women honestly trying to raise awareness and have a dialogue, having been victims of far worse.


You may think you're skeptical, but if you couldn't see through this one, then you're not really very skeptical at all.

I don't see how you look at this one with a critical eye and not see the propaganda and the agenda. It was clear as day to me.

----------


## kahless

> You may think you're skeptical, but if you couldn't see through this one, then you're not really very skeptical at all.
> 
> I don't see how you look at this one with a critical eye and not see the propaganda and the agenda. It was clear as day to me.


I have looked through their site prior to coming here and never denied there might be something like that going on but like I said I do not see a problem with a campaign for civility as long as it does not result in pushing for new legislation.  

They have a very broad range of what constitutes street harassment.  The list starts out as what I would have a problem with if they are pushing for new laws for.  Then it works its way up to threatening, following someone - stalking, blocking, to flashing, sexually touching or grabbing and public masturbation.  

If they are seeking to have current laws enforced on the end of that list then more power to them.  If they want new laws then I want to see specifically for what items on that list and why the current laws we have now do not cover that aspect of harassment.

----------


## thoughtomator

> I have looked through their site prior to coming here and never denied there might be something like that going on but like I said I do not see a problem with a campaign for civility as long as it does not result in pushing for new legislation.  
> 
> They have a very broad range of what constitutes street harassment.  The list starts out as what I would have a problem with if they are pushing for new laws for.  Then it works its way up to threatening, following someone - stalking, blocking, to flashing, sexually touching or grabbing and public masturbation.  
> 
> If they are seeking to have current laws enforced on the end of that list then more power to them.  If they want new laws then I want to see specifically for what items on that list and why the current laws we have now do not cover that aspect of harassment.


Are you completely unfamiliar with what political correctness is about? It's about breaking apart societies by making normal social interactions into grounds for litigation or criminal sanction, so that everyone is afraid to do anything except that of which they approve.

I'm actually quite astonished that your expectation was something different. You have seriously never seen this trick before?

----------


## kahless

> Are you completely unfamiliar with what political correctness is about? It's about breaking apart societies by making normal social interactions into grounds for litigation or criminal sanction, so that everyone is afraid to do anything except that of which they approve.
> 
> I'm actually quite astonished that your expectation was something different. You have seriously never seen this trick before?


I never denied the possibility and speculated on that possibility in the course of the thread.  Regardless of their intentions I posted these incidents can be scary for woman. There seems to be some here that completely deny that following a woman and behaving in an aggressive manner is actually scary.  

On one hand I believe they maybe doing some good but on the other sure I do see a possibility where this could be going.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I do not know what is sadder, you making this partisan


The only place I am making this 'partisan' is in your imagination.




> believing that people are actually calling for that or that you are unable to see what I described on my post you quoted.


There are citations in this very thread from her group wanting to criminalize speech.  It's not like you have to go out searching for it.




> That is not to say I am not as skeptical as you and others here that anytime we see anything in the media go viral that we think there is likely some hidden political motivations behind it that will eventually result in pushing for some form of legislation.  In this case, so far that does not appear to be the case and perhaps these are women honestly trying to raise awareness and have a dialogue, having been victims of far worse.


Dialogue is fine.  "Oh we always go through worse, but we were unable to actually capture anything like that on camera when we tried to specifically do so." Yeah, riiiiiiight.  They are already talking about laws.  Not eventually, now.  And that's wrong.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I have looked through their site prior to coming here and never denied there might be something like that going on but like I said I do not see a problem with a campaign for civility as long as it does not result in pushing for new legislation.


Except they clearly _are_ pushing for legislation, as has been cited here again and again.  I can't imagine why you cannot see it.  It's right there in the text.  "*It shall be a misdemeanor...*" is not dialogue, it's _law_.




> They have a very broad range of what constitutes street harassment.  The list starts out as what I would have a problem with if they are pushing for new laws for.


Then you _should_ have a problem with it, because they _are_ pushing new laws.




> Then it works its way up to threatening, following someone - stalking, blocking, to flashing, sexually touching or grabbing and public masturbation.  
> 
> If they are seeking to have current laws enforced on the end of that list then more power to them.  If they want new laws then I want to see specifically for what items on that list and why the current laws we have now do not cover that aspect of harassment.


And if the 'current' laws are just as twisted and wrong as the laws they want to have passed?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I never denied the possibility and speculated on that possibility in the course of the thread.  Regardless of their intentions I posted these incidents can be scary for woman. There seems to be some here that completely deny that following a woman and behaving in an aggressive manner is actually scary.


Again, this is only taking place in your imagination.  Sure some warped individuals do scary and offensive things.  Except for direct threats, the freedom of speech is NOT the freedom FROM being offended or scared.  The political powers that be are 'scared' of our movement, perhaps the government should outlaw our movement?  That's already in line with what you are arguing.  If someone is scared there should be a law against what is scaring them.  The Liberty Movement scares people, so there should be a law against the Liberty Movement.  Is that the kind of country we are fighting for?  Because if it is, count me the hell out.




> On one hand I believe they maybe doing some good but on the other sure I do see a possibility where this could be going.


Well, the publicly available data on this group demonstrates that they already are "where this could be going" but for some reason you refuse to see the evidence right in front of your face.

I have no idea what to do to fix that.

----------


## dannno

Polite cat calling is a gateway to harder assaults.

----------


## presence

> There seems to be some here that completely deny that following a woman and behaving in an aggressive manner is actually scary.


Iran having nuclear weapons is scary, that doesn't mean we should send the military to do anything about it.  

The dude that followed her in the video was hardly scary.  He was being shy, he thought she was playing shy; if you and I didn't know she was making a vain mockery him it might have been cute. 

Where was any aggression displayed in this public service announcement?   We both know there was none.  

If someone threatens harm that's assault, if someone carries out harm thats battery.  We don't need statutory catcalling bull$#@! to override and befuddle what is already clear common law.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> Polite cat calling is a gateway to harder assaults.


Hey, your post is beautiful.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I never said it was physical assault. I think when people hear the term "cat-calling" the impression is a bunch of guys behind a fence whistling and yelling compliments from a construction site.  This video shows it is more upfront and personal in NYC.  *There are personal space issues that make women nervous since sometimes it leads to more than what happened in the video.*
> 
> These women are getting together sharing their stores (some stories far worse than the video) and are trying to start a dialogue to say hey this stuff sometimes scares the crap out of us since we never know if it is going to lead to something far worse.  It is astonishing you cannot see that but I think you are so completely blinded by partisan style politics everything is black and white for you.


Yep, and marijuana is a gateway drug.  Ban it!

Honestly, I am just as confused as to why you can't see this video for what it is: propaganda.  Do you honestly believe this feminist organization put out this video just to express how women feel when being cat-called?  

And don't give me that "dialogue" bull$#@!.  We're already having a dialogue.  Most decent people already don't like this stuff.  So what are we really trying to accomplish with this?  

What is the solution?  Talking about it?  Is that going to solve the problem?  If we all just talk about it, it'll all go away?

You see, when people use the word "dialogue" connected to women's issues or really anything else political, it usually means we need to talk about legislation.  What does it mean when you say it?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I do not know what is sadder, you making this partisan believing that people are actually calling for that or that you are unable to see what I described on my post you quoted.
> 
> That is not to say I am not as skeptical as you and others here that anytime we see anything in the media go viral that we think there is likely some hidden political motivations behind it that will eventually result in pushing for some form of legislation.  In this case, so far that does not appear to be the case and perhaps these are women honestly trying to raise awareness and have a dialogue, having been victims of far worse.


The fact of the matter is that nobody's proposing a real solution to this other thank "talk about it."  Okay, what's supposed to happen once we're done talking about it?  Does anyone have a *tangible* solution rather than a bull$#@! "solution."  What do you really think talking about it is going to do to solve the problem?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I have looked through their site prior to coming here and never denied there might be something like that going on but like I said I do not see a problem with a campaign for civility as long as it does not result in pushing for new legislation.  
> 
> They have a very broad range of what constitutes street harassment.  The list starts out as what I would have a problem with if they are pushing for new laws for.  Then it works its way up to threatening, following someone - stalking, blocking, to flashing, sexually touching or grabbing and public masturbation.  
> 
> If they are seeking to have current laws enforced on the end of that list then more power to them.  If they want new laws then I want to see specifically for what items on that list and why the current laws we have now do not cover that aspect of harassment.


So, in other words, you would be okay with new harassment laws as long as you approved of them...

Oh, and ALL of the laws we have now are just hunky dory.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I never denied the possibility and speculated on that possibility in the course of the thread.  Regardless of their intentions I posted these incidents can be scary for woman. There seems to be some here that completely deny that following a woman and behaving in an aggressive manner is actually scary.  
> 
> On one hand I believe they maybe doing some good but on the other sure I do see a possibility where this could be going.


What good?  How on earth do you expect to make the people who do this, stop?  They're not going to stop for you or anyone.  

And how was that guy following her acting aggressive?  He was walking with her, but that in itself is not aggressive.  If she was uncomfortable and wanted him to go away, she should have said something like any normal woman would have.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The only place I am making this 'partisan' is in your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> There are citations in this very thread from her group wanting to criminalize speech.  It's not like you have to go out searching for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dialogue is fine.  "Oh we always go through worse, but we were unable to actually capture anything like that on camera when we tried to specifically do so." Yeah, riiiiiiight.  They are already talking about laws.  Not eventually, now.  And that's wrong.


Dialogue is fine, but I'm wondering what anybody wishes to accomplish with this dialogue?  Nobody has any idea what positive change this is supposed to bring about, so you can understand why I'm a bit skeptical of this "dialogue."  If you ask me, it's just more man-shaming.  

Hehe, I invented a new liberal arts college word, "man-shaming."  I'm going to start using that now.

----------


## kahless

Gunny, saying they want to prosecute people for saying "Good Morning" is 'hyperbole'.  I used 'partisan' since you quoted my reply to PaulConventionWV which I believe meant you were agreeing with his reply.  No where in the thread did I claim the actions of the people in the video was violent which PaulConventionWV claimed I was saying.  No where in thread did I support them creating legislation for non-threatening words. 

Only cat-callers that wear hoodies should be prosecuted.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Dialogue is fine, but I'm wondering what anybody wishes to accomplish with this dialogue?  Nobody has any idea what positive change this is supposed to bring about, so you can understand why I'm a bit skeptical of this "dialogue."  If you ask me, it's just more man-shaming.  
> *
> Hehe, I invented a new liberal arts college word, "man-shaming."  I'm going to start using that now*.


LULZ.   Maybe you could get a gov'ment grant to write boring books about it that almost no one will read.

----------


## kahless

> So, in other words, you would be okay with new harassment laws as long as you approved of them....


I do not see what possible new law you would need since I believe existing laws cover the issue for sexually touching, grabbing, groping or public masturbation onto another person.  What possible loop hole could there be in the sexual assault laws.




> What good?  How on earth do you expect to make the people who do this, stop?  They're not going to stop for you or anyone.


I think they may have done some good here.  It went viral in pop-culture and who knows they may have made a few people stop and think.  Maybe over a few years it will be socially taboo like the N-word.  Doubt it but hey it is worth a shot and more power to them if A group can do that.  Just as long as this or another group does not get any legislation past that stifles speech.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Gunny, saying they want to prosecute people for saying "Good Morning" is 'hyperbole'.  I used 'partisan' since you quoted my reply to PaulConventionWV which I believe meant you were agreeing with his reply.  No where in the thread did I claim the actions of the people in the video was violent which PaulConventionWV claimed I was saying.  No where in thread did I support them creating legislation for non-threatening words. 
> 
> Only cat-callers that wear hoodies should be prosecuted.


I made no such claim.  Now who's hyperbolizing?  

What I said was that we need to stop acting like they're even related.  

Is that last line serious?  I can't even tell.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I do not see what possible new law you would need since I believe existing laws cover the issue for sexually touching, grabbing, groping or public masturbation onto another person.  What possible loop hole could there be in the sexual assault laws.
> 
> 
> 
> I think they may have done some good here.  It went viral in pop-culture and who knows they may have made a few people stop and think.  Maybe over a few years it will be socially taboo like the N-word.  Doubt it but hey it is worth a shot and more power to them if A group can do that.  Just as long as this or another group does not get any legislation past that stifles speech.


I don't want it to be THAT taboo.  God forbid some guy yell a nice thing at a pretty lady and to everyone else it sounds like he said the N word.  Like I said, what do you want to accomplish with this dialogue?  

If that's it, then leave me out of it.  I think it's taboo enough just the way it is.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> I don't want it to be THAT taboo.  God forbid some guy yell a nice thing at a pretty lady and to everyone else it sounds like he said the N word.  Like I said, what do you want to accomplish with this dialogue?  
> 
> If that's it, then leave me out of it.  I think it's taboo enough just the way it is.


If you haven't ever had to deal with it, it's probably prudent for you to refrain from telling everyone _else_ what they should put up with.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If you haven't ever had to deal with it, it's probably prudent for you to refrain from telling everyone _else_ what they should put up with.


I'm not telling anyone else what to do.  I'm asking what this hopes to achieve.  You see, the implication is that we're all supposed to do something as a society, but nobody has said what that is yet, except talk about it.  But what is the end goal?  What part am I supposed to play that I'm not already?  If it's a future in which we all treat cat-calling like the N word, then I am not going to have any part in it.

And it doesn't take experiencing it to know it's not hurting you.  I've had some pretty hurtful things said to me in the past but I still know that words are only words.  They are not fists and they are certainly not illegal or aggressive unless they are direct threats.

----------


## kahless

> I don't want it to be THAT taboo.  God forbid some guy yell a nice thing at a pretty lady and to everyone else it sounds like he said the N word.  Like I said, what do you want to accomplish with this dialogue?  
> 
> If that's it, then leave me out of it.  I think it's taboo enough just the way it is.


If you read any of my replies you would know I have no issue with that -- (like a whistle or something nice from afar).  I was only speaking of the more aggressive behavior which can lead to threatening, following, blocking, surrounding and beyond. 

I see where you are coming from cat-calling != sexual assault, of course.  The point I was trying to make is the fear that women have that some cat-callers aggressiveness and invasion of personal space may lead to sexual assault.  I believe that fear is justified and was trying to get you to see that.  

A woman never knows for sure sometimes what it is going to be and like I said I see no problem with women organizing a campaign for men to recognize that.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> I'm not telling anyone else what to do.  I'm asking what this hopes to achieve.  You see, the implication is that we're all supposed to do something as a society, but nobody has said what that is yet, except talk about it.  But what is the end goal?  What part am I supposed to play that I'm not already?  *If it's a future in which we all treat cat-calling like the N word, then I am not going to have any part in it.*


Why not? How would a future in which we all treat cat-calling like the N word (no legislation involved) personally affect you? You've already said you don't engage in the behavior, and you supposedly tell your friends not to do it, so...?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> *If you read any of my replies you would know I have no issue with that -- (like a whistle or something nice from afar).  I was only speaking of the more aggressive behavior which can lead to threatening, following, blocking, surrounding and beyond.* 
> 
> I see where you are coming from cat-calling != sexual assault, of course.  The point I was trying to make is the fear that women have that some cat-callers aggressiveness and invasion of personal space may lead to sexual assault.  I believe that fear is justified and was trying to get you to see that.  
> 
> A woman never knows for sure sometimes what it is going to be and like I said I see no problem with women organizing a campaign for men to recognize that.


That's the problem, in bold.  You don't make the distinction.  You keep saying you think it's terrible, and yet you don't say what you're actually talking about.  It's like you're treating cat-calling and actual assault like they're the same thing.  

So if you don't make the distinction in the first place, then how was I supposed to know what you were talking about?  Where do you draw the line?  What's this "more aggressive behavior" you're talking about?  Put it in legal terms because it matters.  

You also never know when anyone who says hi to you is eventually going to kill you or not, but people need to stop freaking out about random strangers exercising their freedom of speech in public.  The point I'm trying to make is that cat-calling is not illegal in any way, shape, or form, and does not violate the NAP in any way, so stop acting like it has anything to do with sexual assault.  It doesn't.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why not? How would a future in which we all treat cat-calling like the N word (no legislation involved) personally affect you? You've already said you don't engage in the behavior, and you supposedly tell your friends not to do it, so...?


Because it would be far more effective if people would choose not to be affected by the constitutionally protected free speech of others than to start some non-descript campaign against cat-calling.  I just don't think it's that big of a deal.  Who am I to judge if someone wants to find a lover out on the street?  If they see someone they want to get acquainted with, they have the right to attempt to get to know them.  Just because I wouldn't do it, it doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to do it at all.

The whole notion of this vague dialogue that's supposed to somehow have a positive effect somewhere down the road is so vague and hypothetical that it's pointless to talk about it.  Let's focus on the real problems instead of caring so much about what people say and hear in public.

You can't make society change its opinion.  If your idea is a good one, then it will be adopted by society with or without your help.  Do you think the civil rights movement of 1964 needed MLK Jr?  No, he was just representing an idea that happened to be what people wanted.  If it weren't him, it would have been somebody else.  So if society feels the need to make cat-calling taboo, then it will come to be with or without your "dialogue."

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

www.StopStreetHarassment.org is another organization advocating for passage of new laws because current laws don't cover what is in the video.  I looked at the Harvard article.  My understanding is that any new law would be radically different from existing law in three ways: 

1. Eliminate the need to define harassment as repetitive;

2. Eliminate the need to define harassment as intent;

3. Change application to cover any public street.



From Stop Street Harassment's website:




> The following are some ideas for campaign member activities:
> 
> 1. Take the report to local council people who are sensitive to womens issues and discuss street harassment with them. *Propose a law that fines men who verbally harass women in a sexual or sexist manner.* Ask them to introduce it and support it.
> http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/...s/campaigning/




The only issue is that verbal harassment is already generally illegal in much statutory language and/or application.  Language would need to be changed to side-step the three above criteria.  It sounds like a tall order in the context of past court decisions, but it can be gradually done.  Moving work place harassment code to public street application, for example, is now aided by omnipresent cameras.  Also, intent could be partially sidestepped by replacing the statutory language of "explicit" with the more vague "implicit."

I would say that anyone working with these groups at any level will be nothing but co-opted suckers.  Anybody actively opposing these shrewd weasel organizations much crush them to dust like a chalk rock on the street.




.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Because it would be far more effective if people would choose not to be affected by the constitutionally protected free speech of others than to start some non-descript campaign against cat-calling.


The Constitution is irrelevant here. No one is advocating a legislative solution to this issue. My criticism of your argument is as always: you don't get to define what a "real problem" is. If cat-calling is mostly innocent, why don't men do it to other men? There can't be any harm in telling another man to smile, can there?

----------


## jmdrake

> Why not? How would a future in which we all treat cat-calling like the N word (no legislation involved) personally affect you? You've already said you don't engage in the behavior, and you supposedly tell your friends not to do it, so...?


Well the current present where someone can lose his job for using the word "niggardly", which has absolutely no racial connotation whatever, sucks.  That said, the "worst of the worst" on the street harassment don't give a rats ass what you think.  They aren't the Donald Sterlings of the world that have multimillion dollar enterprises that you can boycott.  They listen too and, in some cases produce, music calling women B's and H's.  And lot's of women buy their music, dance to it, and ride their jocks.  It's a simple situation of supply and demand.  Here's Lupe Fiasco rapping about the problem of women enabling their own negative stereotypes.




You want to change the culture?  Work on the girls.  I guarantee guys wouldn't try cat-calling if it didn't work at least some of the time.

----------


## jmdrake

> The Constitution is irrelevant here. No one is advocating a legislative solution to this issue.


Except the feminazis that created the video in the OP. 




> My criticism of your argument is as always: you don't get to define what a "real problem" is. If cat-calling is mostly innocent, why don't men do it to other men? There can't be any harm in telling another man to smile, can there?


In the OP video some of the "cat-calls" were literally a man saying "Good evening."  You keep ignoring that for some odd reason.  But as a man I have had another man tell me to "smile" before.  I didn't think he was hitting on me.  Maybe he was?  I have been hit on by gay guys before.  Not something that I welcomed, but I didn't freak out either.  And I've been hit on by women I didn't know.  That actually made my day.  Some women in this thread have stated they actually appreciated the occasional flirt.  It's normal human interaction.  In conversations that I've had with female friends about women I was attracted to, but didn't approach, they would say "Well why didn't you smile or say hello?"  I responded "I wouldn't want her to get mad."  Their response?  "Why would you think a crazy thing like that?"  If a guy took the stupid OP video seriously, he would think most women walk around with a chip on their shoulders ready to hate on any guy that made any kind of friendly gesture.  Walking beside someone for 5 minutes is not acceptable, but should not be illegal.  But saying "Good evening?"  Or even saying "Smile?"  That should be a reason to hate on someone?  That's just stupid and petty.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Except the feminazis that created the video in the OP. 
> 
> In the OP video some of the "cat-calls" were literally a man saying "Good evening." You keep ignoring that for some odd reason. But as a man I have had another man tell me to "smile" before. I didn't think he was hitting on me. Maybe he was? I have been hit on by gay guys before. Not something that I welcomed, but I didn't freak out either. And I've been hit on by women I didn't know. That actually made my day. Some women in this thread have stated they actually appreciated the occasional flirt. It's normal human interaction. _In conversations that I've had with female friends about women I was attracted to, but didn't approach, they would say "Well why didn't you smile or say hello?" I responded "I wouldn't want her to get mad." Their response? "Why would you think a crazy thing like that?"_ If a guy took the stupid OP video seriously, he would think most women walk around with a chip on their shoulders ready to hate on any guy that made any kind of friendly gesture. Walking beside someone for 5 minutes is not acceptable, but should not be illegal. But saying "Good evening?" Or even saying "Smile?" That should be a reason to hate on someone? That's just stupid and petty.


And _that,_ ladies and gentlemen, is the story of my life.  Which is precisely *why* I know that this effort to make men stop acting like men is BS.  With all my indoctrination in liberal feminism I am still petrified at the thought of even _looking_ at a woman for longer than a second, because it has been drilled into my head from kindergarten up that 'just looking at a woman wrong is akin to rape, and it will offend her.'

I recognize the OP video's propaganda, because I have been a victim of it my entire life.

Are there men who are desperately wrong?  Of course, just like there are women who are desperately wrong.  I am probably in the top 1% of this forum for advocating the harshest punishment for sexual assault.  That's not going to stop me from recognizing BS as BS.  




> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3m3t_PxiUI


Wow, I actually liked that, a lot - and there is very little Hip Hop and Rap that I actually enjoy.  The compare/contrast thing he was doing between the self-imposed "thug lifestyle" and the same people doing the stereotype 'blackface' to themselves was extremely powerful, and the message was poignant and moving.  More Rap and Hip Hop artists need to follow in this guy's example -- he's doing it right.  

It seems to me that a lot of the early Rap and Hip Hop were more into meaningful messages and such, and I remember liking a bunch of songs back in the day, but when it went all "thug gangsta bitches and hoes" I peaced out.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The Constitution is irrelevant here. No one is advocating a legislative solution to this issue. My criticism of your argument is as always: you don't get to define what a "real problem" is. If cat-calling is mostly innocent, why don't men do it to other men? There can't be any harm in telling another man to smile, can there?


The Constitution is _never_ irrelevant.  The actual producers of the video in the OP of this thread _are_ arguing for a legislative "solution," and I have been the recipient of all kinds of horrible, uncomfortable, offensive, and sometimes downright scary speech in my day, and I would rather die than to even consider legislating against it.

I had one guy going off about how I "Oughtta be lined up against a wall and shot" for opposing the NC Marriage Amendment.  Dude had NRA stickers all over his pickup.  Legally that may have even crossed the line into an actionable threat that could have caused him to be arrested.  Did I call the cops?  Hell no.  Did I start being extra-careful to carry my own handgun around for a while after that?  Hell yes.  What this guy said to me worried me enough that I literally felt concerned for my life, but even at the height of it I would never have dared to dream of trying to silence that bigot.

I just don't come off of my liberty position, even when that position stands to cause me great personal harm.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The Constitution is irrelevant here. No one is advocating a legislative solution to this issue. My criticism of your argument is as always: you don't get to define what a "real problem" is. If cat-calling is mostly innocent, why don't men do it to other men? There can't be any harm in telling another man to smile, can there?


Are you serious?  They don't do it to other men because they don't want to.  It wouldn't harm them if they did.  I'm sure most men would brush it off.  I would.  I know, as a human being, that you are capable of brushing it off as well.  Don't tell me you are incapable of protecting your fragile psyche from the words of others.  I know this just as well as any woman.  Your mind is not that delicate.

If nobody is advocating a legislative solution, then what solution are they advocating?  What real solution is there?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Except the feminazis that created the video in the OP. 
> 
> 
> 
> In the OP video some of the "cat-calls" were literally a man saying "Good evening."  You keep ignoring that for some odd reason.  But as a man I have had another man tell me to "smile" before.  I didn't think he was hitting on me.  Maybe he was?  I have been hit on by gay guys before.  Not something that I welcomed, but I didn't freak out either.  And I've been hit on by women I didn't know.  That actually made my day.  Some women in this thread have stated they actually appreciated the occasional flirt.  It's normal human interaction.  In conversations that I've had with female friends about women I was attracted to, but didn't approach, they would say "Well why didn't you smile or say hello?"  I responded "I wouldn't want her to get mad."  Their response?  "Why would you think a crazy thing like that?"  If a guy took the stupid OP video seriously, he would think most women walk around with a chip on their shoulders ready to hate on any guy that made any kind of friendly gesture.  Walking beside someone for 5 minutes is not acceptable, but should not be illegal.  But saying "Good evening?"  Or even saying "Smile?"  That should be a reason to hate on someone?  That's just stupid and petty.


I was reading your post to the beat of the song you posted.  Oddly enough, it actually seemed to fit.

Great song, by the way.  Very interesting and insightful.

----------


## kahless

> The Constitution is _never_ irrelevant.  The actual producers of the video in the OP of this thread _are_ arguing for a legislative "solution," and I have been the recipient of all kinds of horrible, uncomfortable, offensive, and sometimes downright scary speech in my day, and I would rather die than to even consider legislating against it.
> 
> I had one guy going off about how I "Oughtta be lined up against a wall and shot" for opposing the NC Marriage Amendment.  Dude had NRA stickers all over his pickup.  Legally that may have even crossed the line into an actionable threat that could have caused him to be arrested.  Did I call the cops?  Hell no.  Did I start being extra-careful to carry my own handgun around for a while after that?  Hell yes.  What this guy said to me worried me enough that I literally felt concerned for my life, but even at the height of it I would never have dared to dream of trying to silence that bigot.
> 
> I just don't come off of my liberty position, even when that position stands to cause me great personal harm.





> *The Constitution is irrelevant here. No one is advocating a legislative solution to this issue.* My criticism of your argument is as always: you don't get to define what a "real problem" is. If cat-calling is mostly innocent, why don't men do it to other men? There can't be any harm in telling another man to smile, can there?


What part of what she wrote in bold do you not understand Gunny.




> Are you serious?  They don't do it to other men because they don't want to.  It wouldn't harm them if they did.  I'm sure most men would brush it off.  I would.  I know, as a human being, that you are capable of brushing it off as well.  *Don't tell me you are incapable of protecting your fragile psyche from the words of others.*  I know this just as well as any woman.  Your mind is not that delicate.


You are doing what you have been doing throughout the thread which is ignoring that it sometimes goes beyond words and the fear that women have to live with not knowing which one it is going it be. Why do you have such issue with women wanting men to stop scarying the crap out of them by following, blocking, surrounding and using threatening or overtly sexual language?




> If nobody is advocating a legislative solution, then what solution are they advocating?  What real solution is there?


When there is no legislation involved it is actually very Libertarian for people to organize with a message to change peoples behavior. They are partly doing some good as long as none if it results in legislation of speech.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What part of what she wrote in bold do you not understand Gunny.


Apparently it is _you_ who refuse to accept that the producers of the video in the OP are using it to push _legislative_ 'solutions.'  I'm not the one having a reality denial problem here.  And again, the Constitution is *never* irrelevant.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You are doing what you have been doing throughout the thread which is ignoring that it sometimes goes beyond words and the fear that women have to live with not knowing which one it is going it be. Why do you have such issue with women wanting men to stop scarying the crap out of them by following, blocking, surrounding and using threatening or overtly sexual language?


This is the whole point.  Words and actions are two different things.  It's a very simple concept.  Stop treating cat-calling like it's the same thing as assault.  Don't deny it; that's exactly what you're doing.  Everyone has to live with the fear that some random stranger is going to kill them at any moment, but it's not usually realistic.  This is why we need guns and the means to self-defense.  If women were allowed to defend themselves, it would stop the problem in an instant and would be 100% more effective than trying to purge society of its thought crimes with some non-descript campaign.  If we have the means to defend ourselves, we don't need to care about what words people say on the street.  In the meantime, though, stop acting like the words are just violence waiting to happen.  Do you shrink in fear every time someone greets you?  The line between words and actions is very clear, so stop caring about what men say on the street and deal with the actual problem.

I don't have an issue with them wanting anything.  They can want all the want, but nobody here has any solution to it.  Before you criticize me for not joining the cause, just tell me what the cause is.  What is the goal?  What do we do to achieve it?  So far the answer is to talk about it.  Some answer.  The only thing that can be done is for women to arm themselves and learn how to defend themselves.  That is the only solution to this problem.  Anything else is bull$#@!.  




> When there is no legislation involved it is actually very Libertarian for people to organize with a message to change peoples behavior. They are partly doing some good as long as none if it results in legislation of speech.


This is ridiculous.  You have no solution except to sit around and talk about it.  That's what you're advocating.  Instead of talking about how bad men are, why don't we fight for legalizing self-defense?  That would solve the problem more than any of your wishy-washy campaign to change the behavior of others.  That's just how society works.  If the message is good, society will adopt it freely with or without your help.  Sitting around and having a "dialogue" isn't going to do any good.  Giving women back their right to defend themselves is.

----------


## kahless

> Apparently it is _you_ who refuse to accept that the producers of the video in the OP are using it to push _legislative_ 'solutions.'  I'm not the one having a reality denial problem here.  And again, the Constitution is *never* irrelevant.


I already described where I would agree with them on enforcing existing laws and creating new laws if there are any loop holes.  None of that included non-threatening language.

The real problem is your usage of Facebook, hoodies and PaulConventionWV bringing up weed and 'reefer madness' so frequently.

----------


## kahless

> This is the whole point.  Words and actions are two different things.  It's a very simple concept.  Stop treating cat-calling like it's the same thing as assault.  Don't deny it; that's exactly what you're doing.  Everyone has to live with the fear that some random stranger is going to kill them at any moment, but it's not usually realistic.


Women should not have to live in fear of sexual assault when walking from point A to point B from cat-callers that get overly aggressive.  We are going in circles now since this how the conversation started with you.  Saying what I just wrote does not mean cat-calling is the same as sexual assault.




> This is why we need guns and the means to self-defense.  If women were allowed to defend themselves, it would stop the problem in an instant and would be 100% more effective than trying to purge society of its thought crimes with some non-descript campaign.  If we have the means to defend ourselves, we don't need to care about what words people say on the street.


I agree.




> In the meantime, though, stop acting like the words are just violence waiting to happen.  Do you shrink in fear every time someone greets you?  The line between words and actions is very clear, so stop caring about what men say on the street and deal with the actual problem.
> 
> I don't have an issue with them wanting anything.  They can want all the want, but nobody here has any solution to it.  Before you criticize me for not joining the cause, just tell me what the cause is.  What is the goal?  What do we do to achieve it?  So far the answer is to talk about it.  Some answer.  The only thing that can be done is for women to arm themselves and learn how to defend themselves.  That is the only solution to this problem.  Anything else is bull$#@!.  
> 
> This is ridiculous.  You have no solution except to sit around and talk about it.  That's what you're advocating.  Instead of talking about how bad men are, why don't we fight for legalizing self-defense?  That would solve the problem more than any of your wishy-washy campaign to change the behavior of others.  That's just how society works.  If the message is good, society will adopt it freely with or without your help.  Sitting around and having a "dialogue" isn't going to do any good.  Giving women back their right to defend themselves is.


Going in circles again.  Like I said it is a good thing if they can change the culture by keeping people taking about it which may stop the threatening behavior of some as long as legislation is not passed for non-threatening speech.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Except the feminazis that created the video in the OP. 
> 
> 
> 
> In the OP video some of the "cat-calls" were literally a man saying "Good evening."  You keep ignoring that for some odd reason.  But as a man I have had another man tell me to "smile" before.  I didn't think he was hitting on me.  Maybe he was?  I have been hit on by gay guys before.  Not something that I welcomed, but I didn't freak out either.  And I've been hit on by women I didn't know.  That actually made my day.  Some women in this thread have stated they actually appreciated the occasional flirt.  It's normal human interaction.  In conversations that I've had with female friends about women I was attracted to, but didn't approach, they would say "Well why didn't you smile or say hello?"  I responded "I wouldn't want her to get mad."  Their response?  "Why would you think a crazy thing like that?"  If a guy took the stupid OP video seriously, he would think most women walk around with a chip on their shoulders ready to hate on any guy that made any kind of friendly gesture.  Walking beside someone for 5 minutes is not acceptable, but should not be illegal.  But saying "Good evening?"  Or even saying "Smile?"  That should be a reason to hate on someone?  That's just stupid and petty.


I meant that no one arguing in this topic has advocated a legislative solution. How could feminists look to the state for a solution on this issue, when for one thing, the state and its agents have proven themselves to be one of the largest purveyors of violence against women? That being said, however, the fact that the creators of this video offer a lousy solution to the issue doesn't invalidate their criticisms by any means. It's a fallacy to suggest otherwise. 

Just so we're clear... I don't think a simple "good evening" is enough to constitute harassment. From an annoyance standpoint (and it can be unnerving at times), I do see an issue with a "good evening" being used on the street in an attempt to draw someone into further conversation, especially when it's clear that the other person just wants to _get_ somewhere without feeling obligated to reply. Also, an extended conversation can sometimes come off as creepy more than flattering. This is probably a minority of cases, but there were still some instances of this in Jessica Williams' video, so I felt as though I should address it. There is a genuine difference between people exchanging pleasantries and street catcalling. If you can't differentiate between "Cool <insert article of clothing here>. My name is _________. What's yours?" and "HEY BABY YOU LOOK GOOD!", then I don't really know what to tell you. 

I see this sort of thing as being largely context-dependent. If it's clear that I'm willing to socialize, i.e. at a party or a bar or some other social setting, and not already engrossed in something else, and someone says "good evening" to me and the conversation wanders on from there, great! It is _always_ rather irksome when someone tells me to smile, though, as I'm not a naturally bubbly person and there is nothing more fake-feeling than a forced smile. Maybe I don't feel like expending the energy, and what it suggests to me is that the person telling me to smile has no regard for any personal concerns of mine that may not be something to smile about.

The Constitution is irrelevant in this forum discussion because the main concern is trying to change private interactions between private people. The people on this topic all know the speech is protected by the Constitution (if I'm wrong, let it be known that I disagree with anyone saying otherwise... but I honestly don't look to the Constitution for my stance on this issue), but does that mean it's desirable? No. There is nothing wrong with trying to educate men on how many women hate catcalling.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I already described where I would agree with them on enforcing existing laws and creating new laws if there are any loop holes.  None of that included non-threatening language.
> 
> The real problem is your usage of Facebook, hoodies and PaulConventionWV bringing up weed and 'reefer madness' so frequently.


See there we go.  You advocate for new laws and I do not.  I am not sure what is wrong with my Facebook footprint, and I have never said 'hoodies' in my life, so I assume that this is yet another product of your imagination.

----------


## kahless

> See there we go.  You advocate for new laws and I do not.  I am not sure what is wrong with my Facebook footprint, and I have never said 'hoodies' in my life, so I assume that this is yet another product of your imagination.


I detailed earlier in the thread the list of sexual assaults - not cat-calling that I would expect them to enforce existing laws and only create new laws if there was some loop hole that makes a conviction problematic.  Like I said when I posted that I do not see what possible loop holes there would be under existing laws.  

I am assuming you do not really have a problem with that just as I agree with you that I would not want free speech curtailed.

As for the other part, my bad job of trying to add some levity to the thread.  I was trying to see if you or anyone remember some of the other debates I got into with you guys that went down like this.

----------


## dannno

Here's the problem - we've already had one woman comment here saying that she enjoys being cat called. The fact is, even though RG REFUSES to admit it, some women actually like being cat called, even by men they may not be attracted to. They see it as a compliment and unless they are in a dark alley with nobody around realize that they probably won't be assaulted and so that thought doesn't even occur to them. Then we have had another female post that sometimes they enjoy and sometimes it is creepy depending on the who and the how. The thing is, whether a cat call is 'sexual' or 'creepy' or whether a woman feels fear, elation or otherwise from hearing it it will be different for EVERY WOMAN. And that is the point - these men are looking for the woman who feels elated, who feels comfortable enough to be complimented in public and whose first thought isn't 'holy $#@! this guy wants to rape me'. 

Honestly, 95%+ of cat callers wouldn't even cat call women who don't feel comfortable, but there is no way of knowing until they do it. Most don't do it to make women feel uncomfortable, they do it to weed out the ones who feel uncomfortable from those who like it because they aren't interested in the type of women who would feel uncomfortable. So really, all most women have to do if they don't feel comfortable is show it - and that is where the woman in the OP failed, she didn't do what most women who feel uncomfortable do and show it, deceiving these guys into thinking that maybe she was enjoying it, maybe she was considering in her head whether she liked it or not and that is why she didn't show any negative attitude towards it.

I've said this before, most women have had some type of sexual trauma from men in some form, some worse than others. Could be from an ex-boyfriend, ex-husband, a family member, a superior or authority figure, total stranger, etc.. There are two ways women act after being sexually traumatized in order to deal with the trauma - one is to block sexual thoughts from their head unless they are with a special person who they trust - the other is to realize that sex isn't that big of a deal so why feel traumatized at all? The second type is the kind of girl you can make a sexual innuendo and she doesn't freak out and might even turn her on - the second type is the kind of girl who you can cat call and will feel complimented and maybe, just maybe might even enjoy it. The second type is the kind of girl who is more open about sex, if not in a relationship may see sex as something that can be done relatively often, at times with new people they have just met and are more spontaneous. This is what cat callers are looking for, the second type of woman. Not the first. So if you are the first type, you can end the harassment just by showing it a little, they will usually stop. 

I think these men have EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to use their free speech to weed out the first type in order to find the second type of woman so they can maybe have a conversation with a woman and maybe even get laid. I would hope they would do it in a way that doesn't make the first type of woman too uncomfortable because those feelings may come from some bad experiences in their life and I would hope they would be semi-polite about it but from what we saw in the video it turns out most are.

If you want to reduce cat calling, legalize prostitution, I honestly don't think anything else will really affect it besides possibly tyrannical laws. Guys are always going to try and get laid, for most of us that is the nature of being a male and that won't change. The only reason I don't cat call is not really even out of politeness, but out of the fact that it isn't really in my personality.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Women should not have to live in fear of sexual assault when walking from point A to point B from cat-callers that get overly aggressive.  We are going in circles now since this how the conversation started with you.  Saying what I just wrote does not mean cat-calling is the same as sexual assault.


Nobody should have to live in fear, but we all have some level of fear because the world is an uncertain place and we can't control what other people do or say to us.  Most of the time, though, unless women are in a dark alley with nobody around, then they don't really have any reason to be afraid.  We can only control how we react, and the best way to react is not to freak out and try to control everyone else.  It's to control yourself and make sure you have the means to defend yourself.  

And cat-callers != aggressors.  That's the point I'm trying to make.  You keep saying things like "cat-callers that get aggressive" as if it were somehow inevitable that words would turn into violence.  It's a false paradigm and you keep buying into it.  




> I agree.


Then why are you trying to control what people say?  Let's stop talking about this nonsense about transforming the collective mind of society and instead do what we can to improve our own personal ability to react.  Why are you accusing society of thought crimes against women when we could just give women the means of self-defense and solve the problem far more easily?




> Going in circles again.  Like I said it is a good thing if they can change the culture by keeping people taking about it which may stop the threatening behavior of some as long as legislation is not passed for non-threatening speech.


It would be way more effective if we just dropped the whole conversation about changing the culture and instead focused on personal self-defense.  

The whole reason feminism promotes cultural change (and NOT self-defense) is because they want people to feel helpless.  If it's everyone else's fault, then you have to rely on something far more powerful than yourself to fix the problem (government).  If you can't help yourself then you need society to help you and only government can make society behave a certain way.  What you're doing is buying into the idea of helplessness that we're meant to feel without necessarily advocating for government control.  Why not get rid of the idea of helplessness and take control of yourself instead of relying on the creeps of the world to change?  You can't depend on other people for your own self-defense, so the whole idea of cultural change is pointless because it just won't work.  You can't control other people, but you can control yourself.  That's what we need to focus on.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I meant that no one arguing in this topic has advocated a legislative solution. How could feminists look to the state for a solution on this issue, when for one thing, the state and its agents have proven themselves to be one of the largest purveyors of violence against women? That being said, however, the fact that the creators of this video offer a lousy solution to the issue doesn't invalidate their criticisms by any means. It's a fallacy to suggest otherwise. 
> 
> Just so we're clear... I don't think a simple "good evening" is enough to constitute harassment. From an annoyance standpoint (and it can be unnerving at times), I do see an issue with a "good evening" being used on the street in an attempt to draw someone into further conversation, especially when it's clear that the other person just wants to _get_ somewhere without feeling obligated to reply. Also, an extended conversation can sometimes come off as creepy more than flattering. This is probably a minority of cases, but there were still some instances of this in Jessica Williams' video, so I felt as though I should address it. There is a genuine difference between people exchanging pleasantries and street catcalling. If you can't differentiate between "Cool <insert article of clothing here>. My name is _________. What's yours?" and "HEY BABY YOU LOOK GOOD!", then I don't really know what to tell you. 
> 
> I see this sort of thing as being largely context-dependent. If it's clear that I'm willing to socialize, i.e. at a party or a bar or some other social setting, and not already engrossed in something else, and someone says "good evening" to me and the conversation wanders on from there, great! It is _always_ rather irksome when someone tells me to smile, though, as I'm not a naturally bubbly person and there is nothing more fake-feeling than a forced smile. Maybe I don't feel like expending the energy, and what it suggests to me is that the person telling me to smile has no regard for any personal concerns of mine that may not be something to smile about.
> 
> The Constitution is irrelevant in this forum discussion because the main concern is trying to change private interactions between private people. The people on this topic all know the speech is protected by the Constitution (if I'm wrong, let it be known that I disagree with anyone saying otherwise... but I honestly don't look to the Constitution for my stance on this issue), but does that mean it's desirable? No. There is nothing wrong with trying to educate men on how many women hate catcalling.


Educate away, but many won't listen and that's the reality you're eventually going to have to deal with whether you like it or not.  Look at it this way: If you had the means to self-defense, none of this would matter.  No amount of cat-calling could intimidate you.  Isn't that better than trying to change the minds of everyone in society?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I detailed earlier in the thread the list of sexual assaults - not cat-calling that I would expect them to enforce existing laws and only create new laws if there was some loop hole that makes a conviction problematic.  Like I said when I posted that I do not see what possible loop holes there would be under existing laws.


This makes no sense.  We already have a formidable mountain of useless, pointless legislation and you want to add to it by making laws that have loopholes?  Why advocate for any new laws at all?  Adding to the mountain of bureaucracy wouldn't help a single thing.  




> I am assuming you do not really have a problem with that just as I agree with you that I would not want free speech curtailed.


I am sure he does have a problem with more laws, however redundant.  More laws, more problems.  The fact that they're redundant doesn't make them any less wrong.  The Constitution doesn't allow room for new laws on the issue, not even practically useless ones.  The more laws that exist, the easier it is to use them against us by twisting and contorting their meaning.




> As for the other part, my bad job of trying to add some levity to the thread.  I was trying to see if you or anyone remember some of the other debates I got into with you guys that went down like this.


I still think my weed analogy was valid.  You're treating cat-calling like it's just a pre-cursor to assault, as if it belongs in the same class of behavior and should be treated with scorn because of that.

----------


## thoughtomator

Back to my earlier analogy, it's like calling for begging to be criminalized because some beggars follow up refusal with robbery.

Or like criminalizing asking for the time, because pickpockets often like to use that line to distract a mark.

Three felonies a day, people - the point of all this is to make you subject to arbitrary force of the state. *It has nothing at all to do with making women comfortable.*

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I detailed earlier in the thread the list of sexual assaults - not cat-calling that I would expect them to enforce existing laws and only create new laws if there was some loop hole that makes a conviction problematic.  Like I said when I posted that I do not see what possible loop holes there would be under existing laws.  
> 
> I am assuming you do not really have a problem with that just as I agree with you that I would not want free speech curtailed.
> 
> As for the other part, my bad job of trying to add some levity to the thread.  I was trying to see if you or anyone remember some of the other debates I got into with you guys that went down like this.


I opposed Ken Cuccinelli's attempts to work around 'loop-holes' as well, and he had a WAY clearer case than this one.

In the immortal words of Barry Goldwater, "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

----------


## jmdrake

> I meant that no one arguing in this topic has advocated a legislative solution. How could feminists look to the state for a solution on this issue, when for one thing, the state and its agents have proven themselves to be one of the largest purveyors of violence against women? That being said, however, the fact that the creators of this video offer a lousy solution to the issue doesn't invalidate their criticisms by any means. It's a fallacy to suggest otherwise.


And so far you haven't offered *any* solution.  None.  Zilch.  Nada.  It doesn't matter if you don't support new legislation if you are helping to push the agenda of those who want new legislation without actually offering a non legislative solution.  




> Just so we're clear... I don't think a simple "good evening" is enough to constitute harassment. From an annoyance standpoint (and it can be unnerving at times), I do see an issue with a "good evening" being used on the street in an attempt to draw someone into further conversation, especially when it's clear that the other person just wants to _get_ somewhere without feeling obligated to reply. Also, an extended conversation can sometimes come off as creepy more than flattering. This is probably a minority of cases, but there were still some instances of this in Jessica Williams' video, so I felt as though I should address it. There is a genuine difference between people exchanging pleasantries and street catcalling. If you can't differentiate between "Cool <insert article of clothing here>. My name is _________. What's yours?" and "HEY BABY YOU LOOK GOOD!", then I don't really know what to tell you.


If you don't have the common sense to know that the video *did NOT differentiate* then I don't know what to tell *YOU*!  Come on.  Take out the pleasantries and her "1 hour" of "street harassment" boils down to may 15 minutes.  And as for the "Hello" you don't want to respond to?  Keep walking.  The "extended conversation" you don't want to get drawn into?  Keep walking.  How have I handled drug dealers (at least that's what they appeared to be) who were asking me to come over and talk to them?  I kept walking.  How do I handle "aggressive panhandlers" if I don't want to give them any money?  I just hold up my empty hands and keep walking.  It's not that hard.  The bimbo in the video kept walking for 10 hours.  Despite all of the "concern" about how this all "leads to assault" she was never assaulted.




> I see this sort of thing as being largely context-dependent. If it's clear that I'm willing to socialize, i.e. at a party or a bar or some other social setting, and not already engrossed in something else, and someone says "good evening" to me and the conversation wanders on from there, great! It is _always_ rather irksome when someone tells me to smile, though, as I'm not a naturally bubbly person and there is nothing more fake-feeling than a forced smile. Maybe I don't feel like expending the energy, and what it suggests to me is that the person telling me to smile has no regard for any personal concerns of mine that may not be something to smile about.


Great.  When you go out in public wear a t-shirt that says "I have a chip on my shoulder.  Don't talk to me."  Hopefully the overly bubbly people in the world will get the message.  Of course the next person to say "Why don't you smile" might be some old grandmother.  




> The Constitution is irrelevant in this forum discussion because the main concern is trying to change private interactions between private people. The people on this topic all know the speech is protected by the Constitution (if I'm wrong, let it be known that I disagree with anyone saying otherwise... but I honestly don't look to the Constitution for my stance on this issue), but does that mean it's desirable? No. There is nothing wrong with trying to educate men on how many women hate catcalling.


I didn't argue with you on that point.  But Gunny's right.  The constitution is never irrelevant.  And from a libertarian perspective, NAP is never irrelevant.  Someone says "Smile" or "You look nice" is not a violation of NAP.  Nor should the world be forced to conform to what *you* think is irksome.  And again, if you *really* want to change this behavior, than work on the girls/women who go around enabling it by reacting positively to it and/or being crass themselves.  Nigerian emails only keep coming because they work.  Telemarketing only happens because it works.  Cat calling only happens because it works.

----------


## kahless

> Nobody should have to live in fear, but we all have some level of fear because the world is an uncertain place and we can't control what other people do or say to us.  We can only control how we react, and the best way to react is not to freak out and try to control everyone else.  It's to control yourself and make sure you have the means to defend yourself.  
> 
> And cat-callers != aggressors.  That's the point I'm trying to make.  You keep saying things like "cat-callers that get aggressive" as if it were somehow inevitable that words would turn into violence.  It's a false paradigm and you keep buying into it.


To almost quote Forest Gump, Cat-callers are like a box of chocolates for women, you never know which one you are going to get.  I believe the fear to be justified. 




> Then why are you trying to control what people say?  Let's stop talking about this nonsense about transforming the collective mind of society and instead do what we can to improve our own personal ability to react.  Why are you accusing society of thought crimes against women when we could just give women the means of self-defense and solve the problem far more easily?


Like I said a few times earlier in the thread the video was tame they could have showed worse.  You disagree since you say that is reality but I disagree since I have seen worse.  I have seen incidents that started out tame, escalated to being disrespectful and overtly sexual to aggressive body language to a point where I thought I was going to have to put an animal down.  




> It would be way more effective if we just dropped the whole conversation about changing the culture and instead focused on personal self-defense.  
> 
> The whole reason feminism promotes cultural change (and NOT self-defense) is because they want people to feel helpless.  If it's everyone else's fault, then you have to rely on something far more powerful than yourself to fix the problem (government).  If you can't help yourself then you need society to help you and only government can make society behave a certain way.  What you're doing is buying into the idea of helplessness that we're meant to feel without necessarily advocating for government control.  Why not get rid of the idea of helplessness and take control of yourself instead of relying on the creeps of the world to change?  You can't depend on other people for your own self-defense, so the whole idea of cultural change is pointless because it just won't work.  You can't control other people, but you can control yourself.  That's what we need to focus on.


What you describe is not the real world. Maybe one day women will have the right to open or concealed carry in the city.  For the time being I see nothing wrong with working on stigmatizing the behavior.  Even if they did have the right there are just some people where that is not going to be possible, so again nothing wrong with stigmatizing the behavior.

----------


## jmdrake

> What you describe is not the real world. Maybe one day women will have the right to open or concealed carry in the city.  For the time being I see nothing wrong with working on stigmatizing the behavior.  Even if they did have the right there are just some people where that is not going to be possible, so again nothing wrong with stigmatizing the behavior.


And promoting a video where someone saying "Good evening" is equated to someone following a woman around for 5 minutes stigmatizes what exactly?

----------


## kahless

> I opposed Ken Cuccinelli's attempts to work around 'loop-holes' as well, and he had a WAY clearer case than this one.
> 
> In the immortal words of Barry Goldwater, "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."


I posted their list which includes various forms of sexual assault.  So here is a hypothetical question for you.  Lets say ejaculating on women in the subway becomes the new hip-hop fad with a group that objectifies women as simply bitches and hoes.  The current law is at the judges discretion but liberal judges are just giving the offenders a fine and probation.

If this or some group came forward with a new law that prison confinement and required psychological screening as a deterrent would you have a problem with that?  Like I said if people are getting away with sexual assault I want them to enforce existing laws but how can one say we never need a law to stop the unknown as a deterrent.

----------


## kahless

> And promoting a video where someone saying "Good evening" is equated to someone following a woman around for 5 minutes stigmatizes what exactly?


I never said the video was perfect, in fact said it was tame and that they could have done better.  I gave my observations on cat-calling.  The fear women have IS justified.  Legislation for non-threatening free speech is not.

----------


## kahless

> I still think my weed analogy was valid.  You're treating cat-calling like it's just a pre-cursor to assault, as if it belongs in the same class of behavior and should be treated with scorn because of that.


Yes, sometimes it is a precursor to assault and should be treated with scorn. The fear is justified.

----------


## Danke

Women shouldn't leave the home without a chaperone.

----------


## kahless

> Women shouldn't leave the home without a chaperone.


If a woman plans on visiting a high crime area and the chaperone is named Smith and Wesson then I agree.

----------


## Danke

http://youtu.be/uP1Vxu2erq4

----------


## dannno

> Yes, sometimes it is a precursor to assault and should be treated with scorn. The fear is justified.


Already answered:




> Back to my earlier analogy, it's like calling for begging to be criminalized because some beggars follow up refusal with robbery.
> 
> Or like criminalizing asking for the time, because pickpockets often like to use that line to distract a mark.
> 
> Three felonies a day, people - the point of all this is to make you subject to arbitrary force of the state. *It has nothing at all to do with making women comfortable.*


Most of the time it is NOT followed up with assault. 

It's called life. Beggars will always ask for money, men will always make sexual invitations. If you feel especially afraid, maybe the city isn't for you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> To almost quote Forest Gump, Cat-callers are like a box of chocolates for women, you never know which one you are going to get.  I believe the fear to be justified.


Then work to arm women.  Despite what you believe, though, most cat-callers are not violent, and unless women find themselves alone in a shady place, there is very little cause for fear.  If they walk around in fear in the middle of Times Square, then their fear is unreasonable.  Women should know that they have very little chance of being assaulted.  For the rest of the times, we need to ensure our ability to defend ourselves.  We don't need legislation or "dialogue" or culture or anything for that.  We just need ourselves, and that's what I'm promoting, self control.  Not people control.  




> Like I said a few times earlier in the thread the video was tame they could have showed worse.  You disagree since you say that is reality but I disagree since I have seen worse.  I have seen incidents that started out tame, escalated to being disrespectful and overtly sexual to aggressive body language to a point where I thought I was going to have to put an animal down.


Who knows what the reality is, but it almost certainly falls somewhere in the vicinity between what you have seen and what the video shows.  In that case, I see no reason to be too concerned about it.  For those who do find themselves in dangerous situations, there's always self-defense, and self-defense is a much more powerful tool than any misguided campaign bumbling around trying to change society so that women can feel safer.  Changing society isn't going to change the nature of the individual, and there will always be a risk of crime no matter what you do.  So defend yourself and stop trying to control what people say to you on the street.




> What you describe is not the real world. Maybe one day women will have the right to open or concealed carry in the city.  For the time being I see nothing wrong with working on stigmatizing the behavior.  Even if they did have the right there are just some people where that is not going to be possible, so again nothing wrong with stigmatizing the behavior.


Oh, right, you're one of those "until something good happens, let's not do anything about it and instead focus on something far more difficult and nuanced that we can't control" people.  You've got completely the wrong attitude.  Self-defense isn't always about guns.  People need to adapt and learn to defend themselves however they can.  It would still be a billion times more effective than going on an aimless mission to change society.  Stigmatizing the behavior is completely pointless because you still never know when you're going to run into one of the people who just didn't listen.  Literally, the ONLY thing you can rely on is your ability to defend yourself, so start working on that and you won't even have to worry about the stigma.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Okay, listen up, you uncouth bastards.  Hollaback is giving dating advice:




> If youre hoping to get your flirt on, theres many different ways to do so without coming off as a creep!  Comments on a shared experiences (this coffee is the bomb), conspicuous books (I havent read that yet, is it any good?), cute accessories (that watch is sweet), or current events are all things that make us swoon. - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/....eQyAfOPg.dpuf






I think their swooning advice is totally fabulous!  Meet me over lattes for a discussion of Breakfast at Tiffanys.  Bring your sweetest timepiece.









.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And promoting a video where someone saying "Good evening" is equated to someone following a woman around for 5 minutes stigmatizes what exactly?


Good question.  The people advocating some sort of societal change don't even know what their goal is.  What are they trying to stigmatize?  Well, anything that makes women scared.  

Ha, right.  That's a little too broad for me.  I think I'll stick with self-defense and controlling my own response rather than relying on society to change everyone else for me.

----------


## kahless

> Already answered:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the time it is NOT followed up with assault. 
> 
> It's called life. Beggars will always ask for money, men will always make sexual invitations. *If a woman feels* especially afraid, maybe the city isn't for *her*.


I agree, fixed in bold.  Those that put up with it may want to make life a little easier by stigmatizing the behavior through these groups.  Some of it in the video was a bit unfair.  More power to them if it helps as long as they do not get any legislation passed (other than ensuring existing sexual assault laws are enforced).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I posted their list which includes various forms of sexual assault.  So here is a hypothetical question for you.  Lets say ejaculating on women in the subway becomes the new hip-hop fad with a group that objectifies women as simply bitches and hoes.  The current law is at the judges discretion but liberal judges are just giving the offenders a fine and probation.
> 
> If this or some group came forward with a new law that prison confinement and required psychological screening as a deterrent would you have a problem with that?  Like I said if people are getting away with sexual assault I want them to enforce existing laws but how can one say we never need a law to stop the unknown as a deterrent.


Because laws don't stop crime.  If you believe you need to "keep your options open" then you certainly don't believe in the Constitution.  Laws were never meant to prevent crime.  They were meant for justice after the fact.  Enacting a law to stop crime will only result in more people becoming criminals and empowering the government to target whomever they want.

----------


## dannno

> Despite what you believe, though, most cat-callers are not violent, and unless women find themselves alone in a shady place, there is very little cause for fear.  If they walk around in fear in the middle of Times Square, then their fear is unreasonable.  Women should know that they have very little chance of being assaulted.


I can understand why some women have what may seem to be irrational fears of being assaulted - good chance they've either witnessed or experienced it themselves. I feel bad for them, the people who assaulted them should be punished if they haven't been and really it probably comes down to being the fault of those who assaulted them which causes their irrationality. 

But I don't blame the peaceful cat caller on the street for their assault and subsequent attitude and I don't expect them to change their behavior because of somebody else's bad behavior.

If a clown assaults a child, do we blame all clowns and ban clown colleges so that child won't ever feel uncomfortable since they may have to be around clowns again? Or would it be more healthy for the child to finally realize that a bad person, dressed as a clown, assaulted them and that not all clowns are bad- maybe they will lose their fear.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes, sometimes it is a precursor to assault and should be treated with scorn. The fear is justified.


This is your problem.  You're far too open to legislative solutions and muddying the definitions is what that leads to.  If we treat cat-calling like a precursor to assault, then suddenly it's justified to treat free speech like violent behavior.  

It is also not debatable that, far more often than not, the fear is NOT justified.  Most cat-callers are not violent and women who walk around in broad daylight on a crowded street really need not fear being assaulted.  And if you do find yourself in a dangerous situation where there aren't people and it's dark, then first of all, make sure you know where you're going, and secondly, learn how to defend yourself.  As long as you do these things, then you need not worry about what society is going to do to help your situation.  There is a very good chance that it won't be able to do a damned thing for you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If a woman plans on visiting a high crime area and the chaperone is named Smith and Wesson then I agree.


See, isn't that a far better idea than relying on society to change the hearts and minds of criminals?  

Just substitute the gun with your other weapon of choice and you've got yourself a modern solution, no societal change necessary.

----------


## kahless

> Then work to arm women.


I participate in both GOA, NRA and NAGR activism.




> Despite what you believe, though, most cat-callers are not violent,


LOL, no where did I say most cat-callers are violent.  




> and unless women find themselves alone in a shady place, there is very little cause for fear.  If they walk around in fear in the middle of Times Square, then their fear is unreasonable.  Women should know that they have very little chance of being assaulted.  For the rest of the times, we need to ensure our ability to defend ourselves.  We don't need legislation or "dialogue" or culture or anything for that.  We just need ourselves, and that's what I'm promoting, self control.  Not people control.


Why do you have such a beef with women organizing to change social norms as long as it does not lead to legislation?




> Who knows what the reality is, but it almost certainly falls somewhere in the vicinity between what you have seen and what the video shows.  In that case, I see no reason to be too concerned about it.  For those who do find themselves in dangerous situations, there's always self-defense, and self-defense is a much more powerful tool than any misguided campaign bumbling around trying to change society so that women can feel safer.  Changing society isn't going to change the nature of the individual, and there will always be a risk of crime no matter what you do.  So defend yourself and stop trying to control what people say to you on the street.


No one uses the N-word now, what is to say that there might be some success in stopping the more eggregious forms of cat-calling which some clowns do not realize is threatening and scares the crap out of women.




> Oh, right, you're one of those "until something good happens, let's not do anything about it and instead focus on something far more difficult and nuanced that we can't control" people.  You've got completely the wrong attitude.  Self-defense isn't always about guns.  People need to adapt and learn to defend themselves however they can.  It would still be a billion times more effective than going on an aimless mission to change society.  Stigmatizing the behavior is completely pointless because you still never know when you're going to run into one of the people who just didn't listen.  Literally, the ONLY thing you can rely on is your ability to defend yourself, so start working on that and you won't even have to worry about the stigma.


What is wrong with doing both.

----------


## kahless

> I posted their list which includes various forms of sexual assault.  So here is a hypothetical question for you.  Lets say ejaculating on women in the subway becomes the new hip-hop fad with a group that objectifies women as simply bitches and hoes.  The current law is at the judges discretion but liberal judges are just giving the offenders a fine and probation.
> 
> If this or some group came forward with a new law that prison confinement and required psychological screening as a deterrent would you have a problem with that?  Like I said if people are getting away with sexual assault I want them to enforce existing laws but how can one say we never need a law to stop the unknown as a deterrent.





> Because laws don't stop crime.  If you believe you need to "keep your options open" then you certainly don't believe in the Constitution.  Laws were never meant to prevent crime.  They were meant for justice after the fact.  Enacting a law to stop crime will only result in more people becoming criminals and empowering the government to target whomever they want.


You do not want men that ejaculate on women on the subway to receive prison time?  Where in the Constitution does it say that a city cannot enact a law that provides for prison confinement to such creeps.

----------


## dannno

> Why do you have such a beef with women organizing to change social norms as long as it does not lead to legislation?


Because the result is going to be that women act shallow and prudish, and most of us don't want to go in that direction.

The fact is NO WOMAN will ever complain when a guy who they are attracted to and want attention from walks up and gives them a nice compliment. It wouldn't even be considered a cat call. 

It doesn't become a cat call until the guy isn't aesthetically attractive enough or is 'too different' (racially, age, or otherwise) in the eyes of the woman or those who perceive the event - this is shallow, what if they guy has a great personality who the woman may or may not become attracted to?

In other words, it's a judgement call to begin with and so essentially what you're saying is that men shouldn't talk to women they don't know who are more attractive than them, or who are perceived visually as more attractive than them. 

Again, this is all very shallow behavior.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Okay, listen up, you uncouth bastards.  Hollaback is giving dating advice:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think their swooning advice is totally fabulous!  Meet me over lattes for a discussion of Breakfast at Tiffanys.  Bring your sweetest timepiece.
> ...


Sounds great!  Pick you up at 4?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I can understand why some women have what may seem to be irrational fears of being assaulted - good chance they've either witnessed or experienced it themselves. I feel bad for them, the people who assaulted them should be punished if they haven't been and really it probably comes down to being the fault of those who assaulted them which causes their irrationality. 
> 
> But I don't blame the peaceful cat caller on the street for their assault and subsequent attitude and I don't expect them to change their behavior because of somebody else's bad behavior.
> 
> If a clown assaults a child, do we blame all clowns and ban clown colleges so that child won't ever feel uncomfortable since they may have to be around clowns again? Or would it be more healthy for the child to finally realize that a bad person, dressed as a clown, assaulted them and that not all clowns are bad- maybe they will lose their fear.


You do a good job of explaining it.  I just have a hard time explaining it in such a way because it seems like it should be a very elementary concept not to over-generalize and say that cat-calling is evil because some cat-callers have done bad things.  The truth is that assault and cat-calling are not related in any way and really have nothing to do with each other.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I posted their list which includes various forms of sexual assault.  So here is a hypothetical question for you.  Lets say ejaculating on women in the subway becomes the new hip-hop fad with a group that objectifies women as simply bitches and hoes.  The current law is at the judges discretion but liberal judges are just giving the offenders a fine and probation.
> 
> If this or some group came forward with a new law that prison confinement and required psychological screening as a deterrent would you have a problem with that?  Like I said if people are getting away with sexual assault I want them to enforce existing laws but how can one say we never need a law to stop the unknown as a deterrent.


How is ejaculating on someone not already assault? In most jurisdictions this is already defined as "aggravated battery," if not "aggravated sexual battery."

If we assume for the sake of argument that this is not already a law somewhere, and that people were running around ejaculating on women, I would probably support prosecuting them under existing bioterrorism laws before I would support crafting new law.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Ban men. Problem solved.

----------


## kahless

> Because the result is going to be that women act shallow and prudish, and most of us don't want to go in that direction.
> 
> The fact is NO WOMAN will ever complain when a guy who they are attracted to and want attention from walks up and gives them a nice compliment. It wouldn't even be considered a cat call. 
> 
> It doesn't become a cat call until the guy isn't aesthetically attractive enough or is 'too different' (racially, age, or otherwise) in the eyes of the woman or those who perceive the event - this is shallow, what if they guy has a great personality who the woman may or may not become attracted to?
> 
> *In other words, it's a judgement call to begin with and so essentially what you're saying is that men shouldn't talk to women they don't know who are more attractive than them, or who are perceived visually as more attractive than them.* 
> 
> Again, this is all very shallow behavior.


I agree with you but as far as the bold part no I am not saying that.  There are varying kinds of cat-calling and I do not believe the issue is nice guys saying nice things that simply walk away upon rejection.  More like the issue is invading someones personal space with animated body language and overtly sexual language which can be perceived as threatening, following-stalking, blocking and getting pissed off upon rejection.

It is easy to understand how women would have a problem with that, no?

----------


## jmdrake

> http://youtu.be/uP1Vxu2erq4


Great video!

----------


## thoughtomator

This old SNL skit with Tom Brady tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about this video and the points it makes.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f76_1323277426

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I participate in both GOA, NRA and NAGR activism.


Again, if you have the means to defend yourself, you don't need to rely on changing other people.  That's great that you participate in those things, but teaching people that trying to spark social change is a practical solution is not helping anybody.  The only real solution is to take care of yourself.  You can't eliminate weirdos, and it's pointless to try, so instead, defend yourself from weirdos.  




> LOL, no where did I say most cat-callers are violent.


"Cat-callers are like a box of chocolates, you never know which one you're going to get."

I assume you're talking about the violent type and the non-violent type, as if degree of violence had anything to do with the associated label of "cat-caller".  If a man is violent, he may or may not have been a cat-caller as well, but they have nothing to do with each other.  Most cat-callers, like most men, are not violent so you shouldn't inherently fear people who cat-call just like you shouldn't inherently fear men (unless you're a helpless feminist).




> Why do you have such a beef with women organizing to change social norms as long as it does not lead to legislation?


Because trying to change social norms only encourages the idea that changing social norms is a viable solution to anything.  It's not a practical solution to any problem.  Changing social norms is HARD.  Defending yourself is MUCH easier.  I won't say it's easy because it takes responsibility, but in the end, we are the only ones who can be responsible for ourselves.  If you focus on the idea that changing social norms is going to solve something, then you're advocating basically doing nothing except talking and hoping that a change occurs.  Be the change you seek and take power into your own hands by taking responsibility for yourself so that you don't have to worry about other people.




> No one uses the N-word now, what is to say that there might be some success in stopping the more eggregious forms of cat-calling which some clowns do not realize is threatening and scares the crap out of women.


I don't know.  I guess it's just a toss-up.  Could be slightly effective, or it could not be effective at all.  That's it, though.  You're either going to achieve a very slight change, or no change at all.  And the chances of it affecting you are even smaller.  It is ridiculous to rely on that as your means of protection.  Instead, learn how to defend yourself and you are much safer than any social campaign will ever make you.




> What is wrong with doing both.


I already answered this, but it boils down to advocating social norms as a solution.  It's extremely unpredictable, unreliable, ineffective and inefficient.  There's really no point in advocating social change with absolutely no goal or objective or benchmark of success because it's about the worst way of protecting yourself that I can think of.  The best way to protect yourself is not to rely on changing the criminals in the world, but to change yourself in order to be prepared to defend yourself from them.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You do not want men that ejaculate on women on the subway to receive prison time?  Where in the Constitution does it say that a city cannot enact a law that provides for prison confinement to such creeps.


I'm pretty sure that's already assault.  So what, exactly, are you suggesting?

----------


## jmdrake

> I never said the video was perfect, in fact said it was tame and that they could have done better.  I gave my observations on cat-calling.  The fear women have IS justified.  Legislation for non-threatening free speech is not.


It was "tame" because the "problem" is overblown.  Think about this.  She had to go around the seedy parts of New York city dressed like a tramp for 10 hours just to get supposedly 1 hour of "harassment" and most of it wasn't harassment.

----------


## jmdrake

> I posted their list which includes various forms of sexual assault.  So here is a hypothetical question for you.  Lets say ejaculating on women in the subway becomes the new hip-hop fad with a group that objectifies women as simply bitches and hoes.  The current law is at the judges discretion but liberal judges are just giving the offenders a fine and probation.
> 
> If this or some group came forward with a new law that prison confinement and required psychological screening as a deterrent would you have a problem with that?  Like I said if people are getting away with sexual assault I want them to enforce existing laws but how can one say we never need a law to stop the unknown as a deterrent.


 Talk about hyperbole!  No such fad exists.  If such a fad got started the offenders would likely be prosecuted severely.  "Liberal judges?"  They'd be the hardest on the offenders because they are likely to be pro feminist.  What you have described is sexual battery.  And in every state that I know of it's a felony.

----------


## mad cow

> This old SNL skit with Tom Brady tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about this video and the points it makes.
> 
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f76_1323277426


LOL,I searched for that very video earlier in this thread and couldn't find it on uTube.
It says it all.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Because the result is going to be that women act shallow and prudish, and most of us don't want to go in that direction.


But according to some people here, it _would_ do women a world of good if they acted more prudish! These people can't have it both ways. That's granting that you even have your causality right - I'm not getting how not wanting to be bothered by rude and unnecessary comments ("nice tits"...etc) in completely unrelated contexts, such as running errands or walking to work, relates to prudishness. Furthermore, either a "good evening" is innocent or it's not - why is it so difficult to grasp that a great deal of women don't see catcalling as something that works on them, therefore they're going to encourage men to stop doing it? 

PaulConventionWV, a lot of feminists don't oppose women carrying arms to defend themselves. I certainly do not. Best not to tar all of us with the same brush... but I can just imagine the hysteria when a woman decides to shoot a catcaller whom she determines to be too aggressive. 




> Ban men. Problem solved.


This would be a witty comment if it were the case that all men catcalled or approved of catcalling... but it just falls flat here. Sorry.




> And so far you haven't offered *any* solution.  None.  Zilch.  Nada.  It doesn't matter if you don't support new legislation if you are helping to push the agenda of those who want new legislation without actually offering a non legislative solution.


Actually, I have. Go back and read the entire thread.




> Great.  When you go out in public wear a t-shirt that says "I have a chip on my shoulder.  Don't talk to me."  Hopefully the overly bubbly people in the world will get the message.  Of course the next person to say "Why don't you smile" might be some old grandmother.


Way to assume that I must be pissed off at the world if I don't want some random stranger coming up and telling me to smile. Again, it's completely disrespectful and implies the person has no regard for a woman's feelings. Men aren't routinely told to smile for a reason - they're expected to be stoic and unemotional. It comes off as a sexism thing. 

I personally understand how to handle catcallers - headphones in and walking straight ahead generally works. But it's definitely not too much to ask for a little civility. A little history refresher: the streets of medieval Europe were exceedingly violent; in fact, we could even say this violence was normalized. This overt violence eventually was extinguished from the public eye precisely because of changes in thoughts and societal expectations. I see no reason why catcalling can't follow a similar trajectory.




> It was "tame" because the "problem" is overblown.  Think about this.  She had to go around the seedy parts of New York city dressed like a tramp for 10 hours just to get supposedly 1 hour of "harassment" and most of it wasn't harassment.


In what world is wearing a tshirt and jeans dressing like a tramp?

----------


## jmdrake

> Why do you have such a beef with women organizing to change social norms as long as it does not lead to legislation?


Fine.  Start your "Let's change social norms without new laws" organization.  Start by reviewing this video.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f76_1323277426




> No one uses the N-word now, what is to say that there might be some success in stopping the more eggregious forms of cat-calling which some clowns do not realize is threatening and scares the crap out of women.


No one uses the N-word?  You must be kidding me!

----------


## kahless

> Talk about hyperbole!  No such fad exists.  If such a fad got started the offenders would likely be prosecuted severely.  "Liberal judges?"  They'd be the hardest on the offenders because they are likely to be pro feminist.  What you have described is sexual battery.  And in every state that I know of it's a felony.


Did you see where I wrote "hypothetical question". I have heard stories about it happening but no I of course just made that up.

I had said prior to that I do not see why existing laws would not cover most forms of sexual assault.  What possible scenario or loop hole would you need for a new law for, I do not know. So trying to look at it from the other side that was the best scenario I could come up with at the time.

----------


## dannno

> why is it so difficult to grasp that a great deal of women don't see catcalling as something that works on them, therefore they're going to encourage men to stop doing it?


Because the women you are talking about aren't the target - the target is the women it works on no matter what the numbers are - if a guy has to cat call 1,000 women to get laid, and the other option is not getting laid, he's going to do it. There is no way of knowing until after it's already been done which women are whom.

Also, that 1000th woman might have sex with him, and maybe he could potentially be violent and maybe he won't need to be because of that 1000th woman, so some innocent woman won't end up getting hurt. 

That's why I advocate for legalizing prostitution.

----------


## presence

> But according to some people here, it _would_ do women a world of good if they acted more prudish!


If you want to be treated like a nun act like a nun.
If you want to be treated like shorty shorts, act like shorty shorts.

If you act like shorty shorts and want to be treated like I nun... don't mind if I laugh.




> why is it so difficult to grasp that a great deal of women don't see catcalling as something that works on them


why is it so difficult to grasp that when a woman walks around NYC, in a skin tight black outfit, to the locals:


SHE IS CATCALLING


and the "cat callers" are just responding. 


The absurd suggestion that men shouldn't whistle at women 
is at par with the suggestion that all women should have to wear naqib.  

Whether speaking in body language or whistles... its all the same.  

1st amendment freedom of speech

----------


## kahless

> But according to some people here, it _would_ do women a world of good if they acted more prudish! These people can't have it both ways. That's granting that you even have your causality right - I'm not getting how not wanting to be bothered by rude and unnecessary comments ("nice tits"...etc) in completely unrelated contexts, such as running errands or walking to work, relates to prudishness. Furthermore, either a "good evening" is innocent or it's not - why is it so difficult to grasp that a great deal of women don't see catcalling as something that works on them, therefore they're going to encourage men to stop doing it? 
> 
> PaulConventionWV, a lot of feminists don't oppose women carrying arms to defend themselves. I certainly do not. Best not to tar all of us with the same brush... but I can just imagine the hysteria when a woman decides to shoot a catcaller whom she determines to be too aggressive. 
> 
> 
> This would be a witty comment if it were the case that all men catcalled or approved of catcalling... but it just falls flat here. Sorry.
> 
> 
> Actually, I have. Go back and read the entire thread.
> ...


Exactly.

----------


## JK/SEA

is this really a big problem?....

i will confess that when i go somewhere with my 30 year old beautiful  daughter, and my beautiful wife (my daughter has been on billboards around the Seattle area) i walk behind them and get to witness guys of all ages pratically fall over themselves checking out their butts....i have great self restraint, but it begs the question....do women really want a stop to the whistles and butt checking?.....not sure it would be possible....ever...its human nature...part of the pro-creation mandate thats been in human DNA since forever....

----------


## jmdrake

> But according to some people here, it _would_ do women a world of good if they acted more prudish! These people can't have it both ways. That's granting that you even have your causality right - I'm not getting how not wanting to be bothered by rude and unnecessary comments ("nice tits"...etc) in completely unrelated contexts, such as running errands or walking to work, relates to prudishness. Furthermore, either a "good evening" is innocent or it's not - why is it 
> so difficult to grasp that a great deal of women don't see catcalling as something that works on them, therefore they're going to encourage men to stop doing it?


Funny how out of 10 hours of walking the woman in the OP didn't get a single "nice tits" or "nice ass" comment.  Funny how that works.  Funny how you have to resort to hyperbole not even in the OP video to prove your point.  And frankly I don't care if women act more prudish or less prudish as long as they understand the kind of attention they are attracting.




> This would be a witty comment if it were the case that all men catcalled or approved of catcalling... but it just falls flat here. Sorry.


Gunny's point, that went right over your head, is most of the activity highlighted in the silly video that started the thread is normal behavior that normal men would do.  Men who say "Good evening" or even "You look like a thousand dollars."  There wasn't a single "nice tits" quip in the entire video.  So if the type of behavior *in the video* needs to stop, then ban men.  Oh but you have to talk about actions *not* in the video to "prove" your point.  And kahless has to go so far as to talk about a hypothetical situation of men ejaculating on women on the subway, which would already be a felony (sexual battery) to prove a point that we need "new laws" or may need "new laws."




> Actually, I have. Go back and read the entire thread.


Read through 400+ posts just to see your opinion when I don't already think much of it?  No thanks.  If you have a really good idea you can just repeat it.  After all talking about solutions is much more productive than droning on and on about how supposedly uncaring the rest of us are.




> Way to assume that I must be pissed off at the world if I don't want some random stranger coming up and telling me to smile. Again, it's completely disrespectful and implies the person has no regard for a woman's feelings. Men aren't routinely told to smile for a reason - they're expected to be stoic and unemotional. It comes off as a sexism thing.


Way to assume your own view of the world must be right and that nothing anyone else has experienced matters.  Way to ignore the fact that I've been told to "smile" before and I'm a man.  




> I personally understand how to handle catcallers - headphones in and walking straight ahead generally works. But it's definitely not too much to ask for a little civility. A little history refresher: the streets of medieval Europe were exceedingly violent; in fact, we could even say this violence was normalized. This overt violence eventually was extinguished from the public eye precisely because of changes in thoughts and societal expectations. I see no reason why catcalling can't follow a similar trajectory.


Laws were passed against public violence.  You're saying you are against new laws.  And according to you, telling someone to "smile" is "uncivil"...at least it's uncivil when it happens to a woman.  When it happens to a man you just pretend it doesn't happen.




> In what world is wearing a tshirt and jeans dressing like a tramp?


I depends on the jeans.



versus

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> If you want to be treated like a nun act like a nun.
> If you want to be treated like shorty shorts, act like shorty shorts.
> 
> If you act like shorty shorts and want to be treated like I nun... don't mind if I laugh.


And women are never the victims of sexual violence in countries where the expectation is that they be covered from head to toe. 
The fact is, women will experience harassment regardless of how they dress. 

Dannno, what if the reason catcalling works on some women is precisely because of its ubiquity and reinforcement within pop culture? "I'm supposed to respond to this guy because that's just what they do." In other words, if the norm shifted such that catcallers were mocked and derided at every turn, and it no longer became an acceptable method of picking up women, how would this change the tradeoffs you mention in your post? In such a society, it may be more obvious "which women are which"; it's not at all clear that women would respond positively to catcalling if it weren't so legitimized and trivialized in popular discourse. Again, logically there are better options available that don't involve possibly creeping the woman out and aren't inherently random.

Violent people are violent regardless of their access to sex. How will legalizing prostitution (a move I agree with for different reasons) solve the problem of people who require violence for sexual gratification? How can you be so sure that the woman the violent person has sex with won't end up the victim of sexual violence? I just don't understand your argument. There are plenty of other reasons to legalize prostitution, but that isn't a particularly compelling one.

----------


## pessimist

Let's not forget about the libertarian "mind your own business" aspect.

Who the hell wants to be bothered in the street by complete strangers? Chances are you're not going to meet your potential SO by some meet and greet in the street. I highly doubt a smooth come on like: "damn girl! you got it going on" is going to have positive effect on a woman just wanting to get to her car after an 10 hour day at the office or whatever.

----------


## jmdrake

> Did you see where I wrote "hypothetical question". I have heard stories about it happening but no I of course just made that up.


You understand that hyperbole is understood to be made up right?  The point is that your "hypothetical" was so ridiculously over the top that no one needs to take it seriously and even think about it.  




> I had said prior to that I do not see why existing laws would not cover most forms of sexual assault.  What possible scenario or loop hole would you need for a new law for, I do not know. So trying to look at it from the other side that was the best scenario I could come up with at the time.


Look.  We don't need to be "hypothetical" here.  The "Hollaback" organization has made it clear that they want to criminalize the very behavior on the video.  Just "saying something sexual" (whatever that means) should be a crime in their book.  If there was any real case of any real violence against women that wasn't somehow cover by law, rest assured that would easily be fixed.  The one thing the prison industrial complex thrives on is more law.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Gunny's point, that went right over your head, is most of the activity highlighted in the silly video that started the thread is normal behavior that normal men would do.  Men who say "Good evening" or even "You look like a thousand dollars."  There wasn't a single "nice tits" quip in the entire video.  So if the type of behavior *in the video* needs to stop, then ban men.


Logically, his statement doesn't make sense because not every man was represented in that video. It just came off as a very petulant and silly quip. There were plenty of men off-camera and on-camera, I'm sure, that managed to make it past the actress without commenting at all. 





> Laws were passed against public violence.  You're saying you are against new laws.  And according to you, telling someone to "smile" is "uncivil"...at least it's uncivil when it happens to a woman.  When it happens to a man you just pretend it doesn't happen.


Those laws didn't just pass in a vacuum, they were passed because attitudes and expectations changed. If laws passed in a vacuum, what would be the point of any activism or revolution at all?

As for the jeans thing, I will stop wearing skinny jeans when men stop wearing gym shorts and going shirtless at the beach. Quid pro quo.

----------


## euphemia

> If you want to be treated like a nun act like a nun.
> If you want to be treated like shorty shorts, act like shorty shorts.


That sword cuts two ways.

If you want to be treated like a jerk, act like one.
If you want to be treated like a man, act like one.

----------


## kahless

> You understand that hyperbole is understood to be made up right?  The point is that your "hypothetical" was so ridiculously over the top that no one needs to take it seriously and even think about it.


It is not really that far fetched when women have been masturbated and ejaculated upon in the subway.




> Look.  We don't need to be "hypothetical" here.  The "Hollaback" organization has made it clear that they want to criminalize the very behavior on the video.  Just "saying something sexual" (whatever that means) should be a crime in there book.  If there was any real case of any real violence against women that wasn't somehow cover by law, rest assured that would easily be fixed.  The one thing the prison industrial complex thrives on is more law.


I was not responding at that point about Hollback.  I was trying to make a point that maybe in some rare cases would Gunny ever support a new law where the existing law was not locking those committing sexual assault.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> PaulConventionWV, a lot of feminists don't oppose women carrying arms to defend themselves. I certainly do not. *Best not to tar all of us with the same brush...*


Believe it or not, that defense actually has a name, NAFALT (Kinda sounds like a toddler trying to say "Not My Fault!")

Here is my answer to that:




If you want to hear the short summary, fast forward to 17:00, but I highly recommend watching the whole video for some of the juicy quotes from the foremothers of the feminist movement. 




> but I can just imagine the hysteria when a woman decides to shoot a catcaller whom she determines to be too aggressive.


Yeah, and just imagine the outcry if anything remotely like the quotes in the video was said about women instead of men.  You can be famous and say bad things about men, but if you say them about women, you're toast.  Imagine if a man tried to sue his wife for not giving him sex while married.  Guess what, though, women have sued successfully for the same reason.

Here's another video explaining NAFALT:




If you're not all like that, then show me the feminists fighting against all these false labels.  What do feminists have in common?  We're not allowed to say that they all vilify men, and yet that does seem to be a recurring theme.  When will you denounce this?  If feminism is about equality, then why is it called feminism and not egalitarianism or humanism?

----------


## jmdrake

> And women are never the victims of sexual violence in countries where the expectation is that they be covered from head to toe. 
> The fact is, women will experience harassment regardless of how they dress.


I sincerely doubt any women wearing burkhas get catcalled while walking down the street.  What's a guy going to say?  I love your eyes?  That tent you're in looks like a thousand dollars?  Yes women face oppression in such countries but it's likely of a different nature.  (Incest.  Spousal rape. etc).




> Dannno, what if the reason catcalling works on some women is precisely because of its ubiquity and reinforcement within pop culture? "I'm supposed to respond to this guy because that's just what they do." In other words, if the norm shifted such that catcallers were mocked and derided at every turn, and it no longer became an acceptable method of picking up women, how would this change the tradeoffs you mention in your post? In such a society, it may be more obvious "which women are which"; it's not at all clear that women would respond positively to catcalling if it weren't so legitimized and trivialized in popular discourse. Again, logically there are better options available that don't involve possibly creeping the woman out and aren't inherently random.


But you already stated that most men don't cat call.  So why would a woman think that most men cat called?  I can pretty much guarantee you that most people that you are trying so hard to "convince" in this thread to take your outlook don't go around saying "Hey baby!  Nice tits!" to strangers.  I doubt even Dannno does that.  You're far more likely to find men like Gunny who have been so traumatized by the "If you smile at a woman to hard she might think you want to rape her and get scared" that they clam up and don't say anything to the women they like at all.  So this "Let's be careful and not scare the ladies" line could have the opposite effect.  The thugs who aren't going to give a rip about your "socialization campaign" are going to keep doing what they are doing because it works on 1 in X (100? 1,000?) women and they don't care how many times they have to get rejected or how badly they get "put down".  So the end result is the nice guys become even less likely to approach women leaving even more territory for the thugs.




> Violent people are violent regardless of their access to sex. How will legalizing prostitution (a move I agree with for different reasons) solve the problem of people who require violence for sexual gratification? How can you be so sure that the woman the violent person has sex with won't end up the victim of sexual violence? I just don't understand your argument. There are plenty of other reasons to legalize prostitution, but that isn't a particularly compelling one.


So now we've gone from "Good evening" to "You look like a thousand bucks" to "Nice tits" to "Sexual violence?"

----------


## pessimist

> I highly doubt that she was afraid.  She had people watching her.  If she wanted him to go away, she should have said something to him.  Most women would say something to someone who was walking right beside her, but she didn't so we can't compare this to a normal situation.


Yeah you're right. She looked completely comfortable in that situation.

----------


## jmdrake

> It is not really that far fetched when women have been masturbated and ejaculated upon in the subway.


It's far fetched to think that's a fad.  It's *extremely* far fetch to suggest that "liberal judges" would let such men off with a fine.




> I was not responding at that point about Hollback.  I was trying to make a point that maybe in some rare cases would Gunny ever support a new law where the existing law was not locking those committing sexual assault.


I will let Gunny answer that.  But from my perspective, I don't think that there is any possible scenario where there isn't already a law against what any sane person would call sexual assault.  Now considering that in the wake of the Obama administration's BS statistics about sexual assault on college campuses, I could see new laws against "unwanted kissing" being passed.  (That was part of the "1 in 5 women have been sexually assaulted in college" statistic.)

----------


## pessimist

As a guy, *I do not like to be bothered by strangers.* If I am walking down the street, I don't want disgusting, smelly, possibly dangerous humans invading my space or asking me questions. 

If I was a woman, I would be enraged and insulted by being continuously bothered and harassed in the street. And yes, "you lookin' good, baby" passes as harassment if she hears it from every other guy she walks by.

----------


## jmdrake

> Logically, his statement doesn't make sense because not every man was represented in that video. It just came off as a very petulant and silly quip. There were plenty of men off-camera and on-camera, I'm sure, that managed to make it past the actress without commenting at all.


It was a pretty good statistical cross section.  There were men who walked by and didn't pay her any attention at all, men who were polite and said "Hello", men who were a bit pushy and said "You're not going to say hello back?"and men who walked beside her and gawked.  The only men she didn't negatively acknowledge were the men who totally ignored her as if she didn't exist.  So "ban all men" may have been over the top, but "ban all interactions with men" is a straight up accurate "quip."




> Those laws didn't just pass in a vacuum, they were passed because attitudes and expectations changed. If laws passed in a vacuum, what would be the point of any activism or revolution at all?


Right.  And so Hollaback wants activism so that the stage can be set to pass new laws. 




> As for the jeans thing, I will stop wearing skinny jeans when men stop wearing gym shorts and going shirtless at the beach. Quid pro quo.


I will stop wearing gym shorts and going shirtless at the beach when women stop flirting with me.

----------


## jmdrake

> As a guy, *I do not like to be bothered by strangers.* If I am walking down the street, I don't want disgusting, smelly, possibly dangerous humans invading my space or asking me questions. 
> 
> If I was a woman, I would be enraged and insulted by being continuously bothered and harassed in the street. And yes, "you lookin' good, baby" passes as harassment *if she hears it from every other guy she walks by.*


Note to self.  Be sure and be the first guy to hit on the sexy lady walking down the street so that it won't be viewed as harassment.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And women are never the victims of sexual violence in countries where the expectation is that they be covered from head to toe. 
> The fact is, women will experience harassment regardless of how they dress. 
> 
> Dannno, *what if the reason catcalling works on some women is precisely because of its ubiquity and reinforcement within pop culture? "I'm supposed to respond to this guy because that's just what they do."* In other words, if the norm shifted such that catcallers were mocked and derided at every turn, and it no longer became an acceptable method of picking up women, how would this change the tradeoffs you mention in your post? In such a society, it may be more obvious "which women are which"; it's not at all clear that women would respond positively to catcalling if it weren't so legitimized and trivialized in popular discourse. Again, logically there are better options available that don't involve possibly creeping the woman out and aren't inherently random.
> 
> Violent people are violent regardless of their access to sex. How will legalizing prostitution (a move I agree with for different reasons) solve the problem of people who require violence for sexual gratification? How can you be so sure that the woman the violent person has sex with won't end up the victim of sexual violence? I just don't understand your argument. There are plenty of other reasons to legalize prostitution, but that isn't a particularly compelling one.


So you're telling me that women who enjoy it and respond to it are just fooling themselves and they don't really think what they think they think?

----------


## JK/SEA

> As a guy, *I do not like to be bothered by strangers.* If I am walking down the street, I don't want disgusting, smelly, possibly dangerous humans invading my space or asking me questions. 
> 
> If I was a woman, I would be enraged and insulted by being continuously bothered and harassed in the street. And yes, "you lookin' good, baby" passes as harassment if she hears it from every other guy she walks by.


my daughter ignores the comments. Simple.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Let's not forget about the libertarian "mind your own business" aspect.
> 
> Who the hell wants to be bothered in the street by complete strangers? Chances are you're not going to meet your potential SO by some meet and greet in the street. I highly doubt a smooth come on like: "damn girl! you got it going on" is going to have positive effect on a woman just wanting to get to her car after an 10 hour day at the office or whatever.


Unlikely, but it still happens.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> [...]
> 
> If you're not all like that, then show me the feminists fighting against all these false labels.  What do feminists have in common?  We're not allowed to say that they all vilify men, and yet that does seem to be a recurring theme.  When will you denounce this?  If feminism is about equality, then why is it called feminism and not egalitarianism or humanism?


Egalitarianism and humanism are two words that already describe two very different concepts within political economy. Feminism is comparable to libertarianism in terms of intellectual diversity. I personally shun what I derisively call "college freshman feminism/Hillary 2016 feminism" and "tumblr feminism." I'm eager to debate any anti-gun feminist I see, and I regularly make fun of the vapid "feminist" $#@! that shows up on tumblr and is imbibed by every starry-eyed teenager. I *loathe* average liberal feminists like Lena Dunham. I can show why these people are anti-feminist despite the fact they choose to call themselves feminists, and so no, I don't take responsibility for what they say. I don't take responsibility for libertarians who believe in Jewish banking conspiracies or the Illuminati; why am I being forced to police every single statement made by every single self-styled feminist?

- - - - 
jmdrake: there are plenty of settings where Gunny's overtures would be welcomed. The discussion is specifically about strangers who choose to waste people's time on something that has a very low success rate, yet is constantly held up as an example of something to do or played off for laughs within pop culture. The "good evenings" are fine IMO as long as they are not used as a stepping stone to further harassment. I've stated _not_ that most men don't catcall, but rather most of the male friends I have understand it is possibly offensive and so choose not to engage in it, and they also tell their friends not to. And these friends of mine do not have issues finding women to date. 

The sexual violence thing was a response to dannno's aside about how legalizing prostitution would help people inclined to violence, i.e., violent, get their rocks off. I was questioning his thesis - it has nothing to do with the other issues being discussed in this thread. I apologize for the confusion.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Logically, his statement doesn't make sense because not every man was represented in that video. It just came off as a very petulant and silly quip. There were plenty of men off-camera and on-camera, I'm sure, that managed to make it past the actress without commenting at all. 
> 
> 
> 
> Those laws didn't just pass in a vacuum, they were passed because attitudes and expectations changed. If laws passed in a vacuum, what would be the point of any activism or revolution at all?
> 
> As for the jeans thing, I will stop wearing skinny jeans when men stop wearing gym shorts and going shirtless at the beach. Quid pro quo.


Okay, cool.  That means you get to cat-call me and I get to cat-call you.  Fair is fair.  Quid pro quo.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yeah you're right. She looked completely comfortable in that situation.


She really didn't look like anything because she was acting.  In fact, they even said it was acting.  She wasn't showing any emotion.

Which is actually quite odd because any reasonable woman would have said something to a man that just randomly started walking beside her.  If she had told him to go away, maybe he wouldn't have followed her.  Believe it or not, even creepy men don't want to be seen following a woman that is actively trying to get him away.  The point is, if she had just told him to go away, chances are that it would have worked.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Egalitarianism and humanism are two words that already describe two very different concepts within political economy. Feminism is comparable to libertarianism in terms of intellectual diversity. I personally shun what I derisively call "college freshman feminism/Hillary 2016 feminism" and "tumblr feminism." I'm eager to debate any anti-gun feminist I see, and I regularly make fun of the vapid "feminist" $#@! that shows up on tumblr and is imbibed by every starry-eyed teenager. I *loathe* average liberal feminists like Lena Dunham. I can show why these people are anti-feminist despite the fact they choose to call themselves feminists, and so no, I don't take responsibility for what they say. I don't take responsibility for libertarians who believe in Jewish banking conspiracies or the Illuminati; why am I being forced to police every single statement made by every single self-styled feminist?
> 
> - - - - 
> jmdrake: there are plenty of settings where Gunny's overtures would be welcomed. The discussion is specifically about strangers who choose to waste people's time on something that has a very low success rate, yet is constantly held up as an example of something to do or played off for laughs within pop culture. The "good evenings" are fine IMO as long as they are not used as a stepping stone to further harassment. I've stated _not_ that most men don't catcall, but rather most of the male friends I have understand it is possibly offensive and so choose not to engage in it, and they also tell their friends not to. And these friends of mine do not have issues finding women to date. 
> 
> The sexual violence thing was a response to dannno's aside about how legalizing prostitution would help people inclined to violence, i.e., violent, get their rocks off. I was questioning his thesis - it has nothing to do with the other issues being discussed in this thread. I apologize for the confusion.


If not all feminists are like that, then what are all feminists like?  There has to be a central message that justifies giving them a label.

----------


## pessimist

> my daughter ignores the comments. Simple.


Would you enjoy being constantly bothered in the streets? Wouldn't it start to grate on your nerves after a while? Wouldn't a few scary situations start to have a psychological impact?

I am a heterosexual guy- I notice hot women too. However, I am able to restrain my animal instincts and not act like some primitive ape in heat at the sight of one.

----------


## dannno

> Would you enjoy being constantly bothered in the streets? Wouldn't it start to grate on your nerves after a while? Wouldn't a few scary situations start to have a psychological impact?
> 
> I am a heterosexual guy- I notice hot women too. However, I am able to restrain my animal instincts and not act like some primitive ape in heat at the sight of one.


You also admit you have not much of a sex drive and a passive personality. 

I think if I walked down the street and girls were constantly like, "hey, you look really smart!!" and "hey, smarty pants!!" and "Yo nerdy guy, you wannna have babies, I'll bet you make a lot of money!!" I don't think I would mind that much. 

I think the problem is that some women get cat called and automatically think the guy has bad intentions when most guys just want to have sex. Sex isn't a bad intention. So it's really the women's psychosis, which may be caused by past trauma from another male. It would be healthier for them to get over the fear that EVERY man who cat calls them is going to be violent and try and begin to distinguish, or just ignore.

----------


## jmdrake

> jmdrake: there are plenty of settings where Gunny's overtures would be welcomed. The discussion is specifically about strangers who choose to waste people's time on something that has a very low success rate, yet is constantly held up as an example of something to do or played off for laughs within pop culture. The "good evenings" are fine IMO as long as they are not used as a stepping stone to further harassment. I've stated _not_ that most men don't catcall, but rather most of the male friends I have understand it is possibly offensive and so choose not to engage in it, and they also tell their friends not to. And these friends of mine do not have issues finding women to date.


Well they're already off limits at work.  (Could get sued).  Gunny was in the military.  Flirting on base, while it happens, could get you in trouble.  If you're deployed, depending on where you are, doing it off base could get you killed.  Not everybody likes the "singles bar" scene.  And the way the human brain works, if it's drilled in your head that "Women don't like strangers talking to them" then even when the talk is "appropriate" it's likely not going to come off right.  That said, my female friends have told me that the wouldn't have minded someone like me saying "Hello" or even "You look nice" while walking down the street.  But maybe that's because I'm so debonair and incredibly handsome.   (j/k).  And it's nice that your friends haven't had trouble getting dates.  Gunny has already stated that he has.  You want others to see things from your perspective.  You should be willing to see things from their perspective as well.




> The sexual violence thing was a response to dannno's aside about how legalizing prostitution would help people inclined to violence, i.e., violent, get their rocks off. I was questioning his thesis - it has nothing to do with the other issues being discussed in this thread. I apologize for the confusion.


Okay.  I went back and re-read Dannno's post and I see your point.

----------


## Philhelm

This whole debate is silly.  the GREAT LIE is that women are overwhelmingly victims of sexual harassment.  As a man, I'm always dreadfully careful about what I say and do, particularly at work since the modern, _feminine_ workforce requires that I tuck my balls between my legs when at the office.  In my experience, women tend to sexually harass men far, far more than the men do to women, since they essentially have a blank check to do so.  Let's make a list of unprovoked actions I have experienced (then imagine if a man did them to a woman):

1.  While at club, woman walks by and casually slides her hand on my crotch.
2.  Woman at office put her hand around my belt while talking to me, and would often touch my shoulder.
3.  Woman at office states that a bitchy co-worker needs to get laid.
4.  Women have physically touched me in a seductive manner while at work (mostly when I was younger).
5.  Woman at McDonald's kissed a grill-burn on my arm.
6.  Female bartender once admitted she thought I was gay because I never hit on the (ugly) waitresses.
7.  A woman once followed me to my car begging for a ride, and tried to open the passenger door.
8.  While in the military, a female sergeant offered to have sex with me (we weren't friends).
9.  The sexual jokes were always overwhelming, but I always had watch my step since the work environment is hostile toward men.
10.  Women making jokes about men not getting laid (of course, it's easy for a woman).
11.  Woman at club unbuttoned my shirt unprovoked.

I could go on and on and on, but women have been much less restricted in their sexually suggestive conduct to the extent that this entire subject is laughable.  I wouldn't do half of the things that have been done to me since I could actually get in legal trouble or fired.  For $#@!'s sake, imagine if a man tried to enter a woman's car demanding a ride, or grabbed a woman's belt at work, etc.  The whole point of feminisim is to seize power, not to achieve some form of egalitarianism.  Congratulations though; they are winning!  Work sucks.  I can't smoke, drink, curse, talk about dames, or do anything remotely fun because one day some bitch woman with a hair up her hole is going to file a complaint.  The matriarch tyranny is going to be unbearable.  No thank you!

----------


## kahless

> I think if I walked down the street and girls were constantly like, "hey, you look really smart!!" and "hey, smarty pants!!" and "Yo nerdy guy, you wannna have babies, I'll bet you make a lot of money!!" I don't think I would mind.


Would be nice if was nice girls but not if it is skanky street prostitutes and crack whores, spraying you when they speak with who knows what and touching you with whatever man fluids that are still on their grubby hands.  Not liking it.

----------


## pessimist

> You also admit you have not much of a sex drive and a *passive personality*. 
> 
> I think if I walked down the street and girls were constantly like, "hey, you look really smart!!" and "hey, smarty pants!!" and "Yo nerdy guy, you wannna have babies, I'll bet you make a lot of money!!" I don't think I would mind that much. 
> 
> I think the problem is that some women get cat called and automatically think the guy has bad intentions when most guys just want to have sex. Sex isn't a bad intention. So it's really the women's psychosis, which may be caused by past trauma from another male. It would be healthier for them to get over the fear that EVERY man who cat calls them is going to be violent and try and begin to distinguish, or just ignore.


*Passive-aggressive 

Anyway, I am not talking about sexism or feminism or anything. I am just talking about being harassed and bothered in the street. 

Try to put yourself in a woman's shoes who is hit on daily just walking to her car. That would piss me off, to be honest. I would have to imagine the whole *blush* "thank you for noticing" wears thin after a while, no? 

Many of those chicks often do run into overly aggressive men, which would obviously be frightening for them. 

I am not saying cat-calls = assaults here. Just looking at it from an angle of female who consistently faces such things. To me, that would suck. But then again, I'm a borderline misanthrope.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Would you enjoy being constantly bothered in the streets? Wouldn't it start to grate on your nerves after a while? Wouldn't a few scary situations start to have a psychological impact?
> 
> I am a heterosexual guy- I notice hot women too. However, I am able to restrain my animal instincts and not act like some primitive ape in heat at the sight of one.


no...as i said...she IGNORES them. Easy peesey, chuck E Cheesy...i guess she's in control of her emotions, plus she is very strong. Works out.....

edit:,,,hey, wait a minute...you banned yourself didn't you?...now you're back?.....wtf...

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Well they're already off limits at work.  (Could get sued).  Gunny was in the military.  Flirting on base, while it happens, could get you in trouble.  If you're deployed, depending on where you are, doing it off base could get you killed.  *Not everybody likes the "singles bar" scene.*  And the way the human brain works, if it's drilled in your head that "Women don't like strangers talking to them" then even when the talk is "appropriate" it's likely not going to come off right.  That said, my female friends have told me that the wouldn't have minded someone like me saying "Hello" or even "You look nice" while walking down the street.  But maybe that's because I'm so debonair and incredibly handsome.   (j/k).  And it's nice that your friends haven't had trouble getting dates.  Gunny has already stated that he has.  You want others to see things from your perspective.  You should be willing to see things from their perspective as well.


But I could just as easily say that you should take your own advice here as well, no? Just as some people don't like the singles bar scene, others don't like being propositioned in completely random contexts such as on the street while walking to work. 




> This whole debate is silly.  the GREAT LIE is that women are overwhelmingly victims of sexual harassment.  As a man, I'm always dreadfully careful about what I say and do, particularly at work since the modern, _feminine_ workforce requires that I tuck my balls between my legs when at the office.  In my experience, women tend to sexually harass men far, far more than the men do to women, since they essentially have a blank check to do so.  Let's make a list of unprovoked actions I have experienced (then imagine if a man did them to a woman):


First of all, offering anecdotes of things that have happened to one man (you) is not enough proof to refute anything. You could make the claim that more men are victims of sexual harassment than women, which is entirely possible, but then we'd have to see some concrete statistics. I'm even willing to bet the statistics in such a case wouldn't be reflective of the truth, however, because I'm guessing men would be less likely to report these incidents as harassment.

So, I want to get to your point because I believe feminism does in fact have at least one valuable thing to say on the matter. Let's assume since you're defining these incidents as harassment, that they're unwanted, and that you're interested in reporting them... the fact is that you would probably not be taken seriously. One of the reasons for this is because people generally believe that men seek out sexual attention from anywhere they can get it, and women don't always want sex as much. So incidents where men are harassed tend to be laughed at or completely ignored. Well, a lot of principled feminists, I promise you, take issue with these extremely limited and stereotypical views of male and female sexuality, and want to eliminate any "blank checks" that women have for harassing men. Honestly the only place where I have seen so-called "feminists" laugh at the suggestion that men can be harassed is tumblr, which is full of scum. So I sympathize with you there.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

"Hey, good lookin'; we'll be back to pick you up later."

(That ain't Sammy Hagar in the backseat.)

----------


## jmdrake

> But I could just as easily say that you should take your own advice here as well, no? Just as some people don't like the singles bar scene, others don't like being propositioned in completely random contexts such as on the street while walking to work.


And still others actually don't mind or actually like being propositioned in completely random contexts.  And still others are happy when the guys/gals they are attracted to approach them in any context and are miffed when the guys/gals they don't like aren't proposition them in any context.  So my own advice is don't worry so freaking much about what somebody else thinks.  You're not going to please everyone anyway.  Don't be a total ass and follow a woman for 5 minutes, but if you throw out a "hello" or a compliment to a stranger and you get rebuffed you really haven't lost anything.  Seriously, the last time I was at the DMV I told a female friend how cute the lady behind the counter was.  My friend was like "And the reason you didn't try get her number was what exactly?"  Oh yeah, and my friend is a liberal feminist.  But I guess someone would yank her feminist card if that got out.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It was a pretty good statistical cross section.  There were men who walked by and didn't pay her any attention at all, men who were polite and said "Hello", men who were a bit pushy and said "You're not going to say hello back?"and men who walked beside her and gawked.  The only men she didn't negatively acknowledge were the men who totally ignored her as if she didn't exist.  _So "ban all men" may have been over the top, but "ban all interactions with men" is a straight up accurate "quip."_


Actually, I was dead serious.  I haven't had a single date in over 8 years.  Not because I don't want to, I very much want a family, but because I actually bought the nonsense that I should never, ever make advances under any circumstances, because that's offensive.  Now I'm set in it and I don't know anything different.  This video and it's defenders are basically saying 'ban all advances because they are offensive.'  You do that, and the only men left will be outlaws.  At least until they are all rounded up and thrown in prison.  And where will that leave the species?  Manless.  I'll say it again: Ban men.  Problem solved.

----------


## jmdrake

> Would be nice if was nice girls but not if it is skanky street prostitutes and crack whores, spraying you when they speak with who knows what and touching you with whatever man fluids that are still on their grubby hands.  Not liking it.


In other words, the issue is the desirability of the person doing the harassing?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f76_1323277426

----------


## juleswin

> If not all feminists are like that, then what are all feminists like?  There has to be a central message that justifies giving them a label.


I am with you on this but this is a rather silly question. There cannot be right answer to that your question because all feminists are not the same. A better question would be, what has the non radical feminist ever achieved politically? The problem with non radical feminism is that they have no political, social or financial power. The only feminists practicing their craft in the public space are the bat$#@! crazy ones, the ones who believe in theories like rape culture and patriarchy.

----------


## TheTexan

This whole thread is getting pretty gay.

----------


## Philhelm

> First of all, offering anecdotes of things that have happened to one man (you) is not enough proof to refute anything. You could make the claim that more men are victims of sexual harassment than women, which is entirely possible, but then we'd have to see some concrete statistics. I'm even willing to bet the statistics in such a case wouldn't be reflective of the truth, however, because I'm guessing men would be less likely to report these incidents as harassment.


I'm reminded of this guy (who didn't bathe - seriously, he had a 30' stench radius and shared my name, but he was "Stinky Phil") from some of my history classes years ago, in which his default response to any evidence presented during a debate was that it was anecdotal.  Frankly, it's a cop-out response.  Evidence is evidence, and at some point "anecdotal" evidence starts to pile up.  Since it would be impossible to document every case of harassment hypocrisy that women subject men to, you conveniently win the argument because the opposing evidence is "anecdotal."  I suppose people should simply cease making observations and forming conclusions based upon those observations because everything is "anecdotal."  The bottom line is that in my thirty-four years of existence, I have probably observed thousands of people, and the majority of overt sexual harassment was perpetrated by women, since they do indeed have a blank check, regardless of whether a minority of "feminists" take such things super seriously.

Let's flip the roles from my anecdotes:

1. While at club, strange man walks by and casually slides his hand along her vagina (criminal).
 2. Man at office puts his hand around a woman's belt and touches her arm and shoulders frequently (harassment/firing).
 3. Man at office states that a bitchy co-worker needs to get laid (harassment/firing).
 4. Man touches co-workers in a seductive manner while at work (harassment/firing).
 5. Man kisses a scab on a woman's arm while at work (harassment/firing).
 6. Male bartender suggests that a regular female patron is a lesbian because she never hit on the men working there (harassment/firing).
 7. A man follows a woman to her car, asking for a ride, and tries to open the locked passenger side door to enter the car (criminal).
 8. Male sergeant tells junior enlisted female soldier that he will have sex with her if she wants (criminal).
 9. A man tells dirty jokes to women at work, without being familiar with them or having established a friendship (harassment/firing).
 10. A man asks a female co-worker how many dicks she has sucked (harassment/firing).
 11. A man unbuttons a females shirt while at a club (criminal).

The above does not apply to Alpha male studs unless perpetrated in a dark alley.




> So, I want to get to your point because I believe feminism does in fact have at least one valuable thing to say on the matter. Let's assume since you're defining these incidents as harassment, that they're unwanted, and that you're interested in reporting them... the fact is that you would probably not be taken seriously. One of the reasons for this is because people generally believe that men seek out sexual attention from anywhere they can get it, and women don't always want sex as much. So incidents where men are harassed tend to be laughed at or completely ignored.


No kidding, but therein lies the problem.  In criminal law, for instance, it used to be that two elements needed to be proven:  Actus Reus (a bad act) and Mens Rea (bad intent).  If, for example, I am in a convenience store and my hands are full so I put a bottle of soda in my pocket but forget to pay for it, I have not technically committed a crime, since there was no criminal intent.  With harassment standards, it is not based upon the intent of the so-called harasser, but on the feelings of the "victim."  Therefore, two different people could commit the same act of harassment to the same woman but one may be deemed harassment while the other harmless flirting.  That's problematic by my estimation.




> Well, a lot of principled feminists, I promise you, take issue with these extremely limited and stereotypical views of male and female sexuality, and want to eliminate any "blank checks" that women have for harassing men. Honestly the only place where I have seen so-called "feminists" laugh at the suggestion that men can be harassed is tumblr, which is full of scum. So I sympathize with you there.


That's anecdotal, so I have to pretend that tumblr doesn't exist.

----------


## thoughtomator

> I am with you on this but this is a rather silly question. There cannot be right answer to that your question because all feminists are not the same. A better question would be, what has the non radical feminist ever achieved politically? The problem with non radical feminism is that they have no political, social or financial power. The only feminists practicing their craft in the public space are the bat$#@! crazy ones, the ones who believe in theories like rape culture and patriarchy.


Feminism, apparently, is whatever anyone who calls themselves a feminist wants it to be.

The clear answer to the question is *a feminist is a woman who is not feminine*.

----------


## Danke

> My friend was like "And the reason you didn't try get her number was what exactly?"  Oh yeah, and my friend is a *liberal feminist*.  But I guess someone would yank her feminist card if that got out.


No card yanked yet, but serious jmdrake cool points deducted. Unless she has big titties.

----------


## pessimist

The feminists need another riot grrrl movement or something.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

American guy walks up to dozens of women in Europe.  Asks them if they want to have sex.


"I don't like dick.  I only like pussy."

"Let me think.  Okay, why not."

"I like black guys.  I'm sorry."



Video here:

http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/new...e-sex-with-him

----------


## jmdrake

> American guy walks up to dozens of women in Europe.  Asks them if they want to have sex.
> 
> 
> "I don't like dick.  I only like pussy."
> 
> "Let me think.  Okay, why not."
> 
> "I like black guys.  I'm sorry."
> 
> ...


From the link (and confirmed in the video).

_The dude, who recorded the video ostensibly as a "social experiment" (but also definitely wanted to see if he could actually get laid), is shown walking up to 200 women and saying "Hi, I think you're really cute, do you wanna have sex with me?"

We think you're going to have to try a bit harder than that, "Brian".

He got laughter, confusion, outrage, a slap - and even, inexplicably, one woman who agreed to have sex with him and trotted off to his hotel room eagerly._

And ^that, my friends, is why some campaign against cat calling based on "shaming" the guys that do it *will never work*.  This guy got laid.  Sure he got slapped in the process of trying.  But at the end of the day he still got laid.  He got what he wanted, sex with no commitment that he didn't have to pay for, and all that was required of him was persistence.  He's the same kind of guy that would make a great Amway or other MLM "businessman".  Just keep persisting, despite all social pressure for you to stop, and eventually you will "get lucky".  (Pun very much intended).

----------


## pessimist

I realize that I must live on a different planet, but that whole having sex with strangers thing is just so weird to me.

Sex is already an awkward activity. I mean, meeting someone off the street, someone you've never seen or met before, and having sex with them would magnify it, wouldn't it? You know, there is a safer, alternative way to curb sexual desire rather than asking 100 women for sex- it's called masturbating. 

I get the impression that these highly persistent dudes are the same types that would take an unconscious drunk chick sprawled out on a bed as an act of courting and seduction.

"She totally wanted me dude, she had her legs spread open and everything". 

Why do people suck so much? And why are humans so obsessed with sex? We have to be the only species in this universe that actually takes enjoyment in watching people/animals (for the weirdos and pervs out there) copulate.

I don't get the average person at all. That is all the average dude talks about- sports and T&A. *shrug*

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

Here's something that should clear up some of the assumptions being made in this thread:

One More Thing About That Viral Street Harassment Video: Its Creators Don't Want to Imprison Catcallers




> [...]
> "Street Harassment Shouldn't Be a Crime," agreed Lizzie Crocker of The Daily Beast. Crocker chided Hollaback!, the organization behind the video, for supporting efforts to legislatively prohibit such behavior and claimed that "according to Hollabacks mission statement, the group is interested in modifying the law to punish offenders (and raising significant First Amendment concerns)."
> 
> I pored over Hollaback!'s website looking for evidence of this claim and was prepared to skewer the group for pushing a pro-censorship and pro-criminalization agenda. Alas, I found nothing of the sort. Hollaback!'s strategy revolves around building a public awareness campaign to shame street harassers into changing their ways. The group does not specifically call for any sort of legislative action, as far as I can tell.
> 
> To clarify the matter, I reached out to Emily May, co-founder and executive director of Hollaback! She forwarded me a column written by the group's deputy director, Debjani Roy, about "Finding Effective Solutions to Street Harassment":
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

Hmmm....at the contrast of....




> You know, there is a safer, alternative way to curb sexual desire rather than asking 100 women for sex- it's called masturbating.


and....




> We have to be the only species in this universe that actually takes enjoyment in watching people/animals (for the weirdos and pervs out there) copulate.


I would hazard a guess that most of the time when guys masturbate it's to images of other people having sex.

----------


## jmdrake

> Here's something that should clear up some of the assumptions being made in this thread:
> 
> One More Thing About That Viral Street Harassment Video: Its Creators Don't Want to Imprison Catcallers


So you've basically just shown them to be liars.  Their own website calls for criminalization of "street harassment."  That they put out mixed messages when talking to someone from a libertarian website (reason.com) doesn't change that.  Again *from their own website*!

http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/legal/
_The law has historically failed to take seriously numerous issues affecting women’s lives, and street harassment is no exception. Although several legal remedies could potentially be employed to combat street harassment, the current state of the legal system makes success highly unlikely.

Judges, legislators, and other decision-makers—mostly male—have generally understood street harassment as a trivial occurrence and thus not within the proper scope of the law. In turn, even laws already on the books that prohibit intimidation and harassment are rarely interpreted to address the harms of street harassment experienced by women. The application of existing legal remedies to street harassment experienced by LGBTQ individuals is an even more remote possibility, although legislation prohibiting hate crimes and hate speech may provide additional recourse in these cases. For more information on this, click here.

Given the shortcomings of the law in this arena, a number of legal scholars and activists have suggested specific legal reforms that have yet to be implemented. For a thorough review of current legal concepts used against street harassment and their failures, as well as proposed remedies, see Cynthia Grant Bowman’s “Street Harassment and the Informal Ghettoization of Women,” published in the Harvard Law Review and available here.
_

Someone already posted excerpts from the Harvard Law Review article being promoted by Hollaback.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5688028
_The author's sample statute:

"It shall be a misdemeanor...to engage in street harassment...

Street harassment occurs...with language...that is...implicitly sexual. Such language includes...reference... to the target...as the object of sexual desire." (page 575)_

So spare me the "They don't want new laws" BS.

Anyway, good luck with your whatever campaign you have in mind on this issue.  As long as 1 in 200 women are ready to sleep with some stranger that comes up to them and says "I think you're cute.  Do you want to have sex." it's not going to matter.

----------


## kahless

> Their 'dialogue' seems to include pressing for a man calling "Good morning!" to a woman to be locked up in jail.  It should come as no surprise, then, that their 'dialogue' is ridiculed around here and many places around the datasphere.





> I do not know what is sadder, you making this partisan believing that people are actually calling for that or that you are unable to see what I described on my post you quoted. _(on how the behavior is perceived by women)_
> 
> That is not to say I am not as skeptical as you and others here that anytime we see anything in the media go viral that we think there is likely some hidden political motivations behind it that will eventually result in pushing for some form of legislation.  In this case, so far that does not appear to be the case and perhaps these are women honestly trying to raise awareness and have a dialogue, having been victims of far worse.





> What's "sadder" is you attempting to participate in a thread without actually informing yourself about what you side is asking for.
> 
> Now repeat this 1,000 times until it sticks in your head.  The people pushing this want new laws.  The people pushing this want new laws.





> Apparently it is _you_ who refuse to accept that the producers of the video in the OP are using it to push _legislative_ 'solutions.'  I'm not the one having a reality denial problem here.  And again, the Constitution is *never* irrelevant.





> Here's something that should clear up some of the assumptions being made in this thread:
> 
> One More Thing About That Viral Street Harassment Video: Its Creators Don't Want to Imprison Catcallers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				I pored over Hollaback!'s website looking for evidence of this claim and was prepared to skewer the group for pushing a pro-censorship and pro-criminalization agenda. Alas, I found nothing of the sort. Hollaback!'s strategy revolves around building a public awareness campaign to shame street harassers into changing their ways. The group does not specifically call for any sort of legislative action, as far as I can tell.
> ...


Do I still have to accept that they are pushing for new laws, LOL.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

These people are pushing for legislation. WWW.StopStreetHarassment.org is a similar organization that advocates legislation.  I'm not sure why it should matter who proposes these laws.   


My understanding is that any new law would be radically different from existing law in three ways: 

1. Eliminate the need to define harassment as repetitive;

2. Eliminate the need to define harassment as intent;

3. Change application to cover any public street.



From Stop Street Harassment's website:




> The following are some ideas for campaign member activities:
> 
> 1. *Take the report to local council people who are sensitive to women’s issues and discuss street harassment with them*. *Propose a law that fines men who verbally harass women in a sexual or sexist manner.* *Ask them to introduce it and support it.
> *http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/...s/campaigning/



The only issue is that verbal harassment is already generally illegal in much statutory language and/or application. Language would need to be changed to side-step the three above criteria.  This is outlined in the article cited by Hollaback.

It sounds like a tall order in the context of past court decisions, but it can be gradually done. Moving work place harassment code to public street application, for example, is now aided by omnipresent cameras. Also, intent could be partially sidestepped by replacing the statutory language of "explicit" with the more vague "implicit."

Hollaback is a grass roots organization.  Any proposals for legislation would probably be done at the local level, such as the 79 cities they cite.  Hollaback provides the framework in the article they cited.  They work with legislators all the time on items like PSA campaigns.  One would have to be naïve to think that no one in these 79 Hollaback cities is floating legislative ideas when having conversations with legislators.  The other organization is already calling for legislation anyway.  Different organizations; same agendas.  

This is the United States, 2014.  If you want to stop something, then you pass a law.  Wake up already.

----------


## jmdrake

> Do I still have to accept that they are pushing for new laws, LOL.


Edit: Okay this is my third edit to take out the snark.  If anyone responds before this edit, I apologize

They advocate for new laws on their freaking website.  Why would they say "The current laws don't address street harassment sufficiently....some legal scholars want new laws....here's the link" unless they are actually advocating for new laws?

----------


## kahless

> If you don't wish to be seen as dishonest or incompetent then yes.  They advocate for new laws on their freaking website.  Just because some blogger from Reason is too incompetent or dishonest to see that doesn't change anything.  You don't say "The current laws don't address street harassment sufficiently....some legal scholars want new laws....here's the link" unless you are actually advocating for new laws.


It is actually the group's deputy director, Debjani Roy not just the blogger from Reason.  



> When it comes to combating street harassment, increasing criminalization is not the answer.
> 
> The criminal justice system disproportionately targets and affects low-income communities and communities of color, as evidenced by more recent policies such as New York City's Stop and Frisk program and other degrading forms of racial profiling. Our objective is to address and shift cultural and social dialogues and attitudes of patriarchy that purport street harassment as simply the price you pay for being a woman or being LBGTQ. It is not to re-victimize men already discriminated against by the system.





> These people are pushing for legislation. WWW.StopStreetHarassment.org is a similar organization that advocates legislation.  I'm not sure why it should matter who proposes these laws.


It does matter since the debate is whether the organization we are talking about is or is not proposing new laws, not the one you listed.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Here is yet ANOTHER organization that does not understand the definition of harassment:





> *What constitutes sexual harassment?
> *
> Sexual harassment includes leers, whistles, honks, kissing noises, non-sexually explicit evaluative comments, vulgar gestures, sexually charged comments, flashing, stalking, public masturbation, sexual touching, and assault.
> http://www.collectiveactiondc.org/re...port-to-wmata/



Is that going to stop them?  Not at all.  They work closely with the Stop Street Harassment organization who does advocate new laws:




> Over the last several weeks, Ive been part of a team at Collective Action for Safe Spaces pressuring the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA) to do more about sexual harassment and assault on the Washington, DC-area transportation system. We testified in February before the DC City Council, specifically before Ward 4 City Council Member Muriel Bowser. 
> http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/...legislationdc/



Which, of course, leads to a total disregard of any common sense definition of harassment:





> Early on in our collaboration with WMATA, we found out from transit police that they have limitations in making arrests. For example, *verbal sexual harassment, unless its a threat, is not a criminal offense (but for the first time, WMATA is finally tracking it to look for patterns, etc) so they cannot do anything about it (this is true most places in the USA and cause for future legislative work*).

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> It does matter since the debate is whether the organization we are talking about is or is not proposing new laws, not the one you listed.



"The debate."

----------


## dannno

> I realize that I must live on a different planet, but that whole having sex with strangers thing is just so weird to me.
> 
> Sex is already an awkward activity. I mean, meeting someone off the street, someone you've never seen or met before, and having sex with them would magnify it, wouldn't it?


Sex is not awkward for me, I've hooked up with girls without even talking to them or asking their name - we literally just look at each other, we can tell we want each other badly right then and there and we start making out. It's a very primal experience. It hasn't happened to me a lot, but a few times and fortunately they were all quite attractive.






> You know, there is a safer, alternative way to curb sexual desire rather than asking 100 women for sex- it's called masturbating.


Nope.

*TMI Warning*

If I don't get laid for a few months I have to masturbate 1-3 times a day, which ends up taking up a lot of my time. On top of that, in this state every time I see an attractive female pretty much all I can think about is having sex. I'm pretty much constantly horny and masturbating only alleviates things for 1-4 hours, sometimes it alleviates nothing.

Once I have sex, even just once, it's like being on vacation for at least the next 3-5 weeks. If I'm getting semi-regular sex then when I see an attractive female I can choose whether I want to fantasize about them and get turned on or I can choose to ignore it and focus on something else. I only have to masturbate 2-3 times a month max instead of 1-3 times a day and I'm not constantly horny all the time, only when I choose to be. It's seriously like sipping on a pina colada on the beach in a tropical island in comparison. 

Also, I'm straight and have no proclivity towards engaging in sexual activity with men no matter how horny I am. I also have no proclivity towards watching animals have sex. 

So hopefully that helps you understand why people with stronger sex drives are constantly trying to have sex, or are in relationships where they are able to have somewhat regular sex. I mean, besides sex being incredibly amazing (I imagine it probably feels a lot better for people with strong sex drives), would you rather be stressed out all the time or on vacation?

And yes, it also explains many instances of rape for those who have strong sex drives, can't get laid and don't have strong moral or ethical values towards their fellow human beings or females. That's why I believe legal prostitution would help curb rape.

----------


## kahless

> "The debate."


Oh excuse me, is "discussion"  better wise ass.

----------


## Philhelm

> I realize that I must live on a different planet, but that whole having sex with strangers thing is just so weird to me.


What planet _are_ you from?  Sex with an attractive, strange woman that has not been seen in the flesh is one of life's most thrilling moments.




> Sex is already an awkward activity.


No.  No, it's not.




> I mean, meeting someone off the street, someone you've never seen or met before, and having sex with them would magnify it, wouldn't it? You know, there is a safer, alternative way to curb sexual desire rather than asking 100 women for sex- it's called masturbating.


Masturbating is not on par with sex.




> I get the impression that these highly persistent dudes are the same types that would take an unconscious drunk chick sprawled out on a bed as an act of courting and seduction.  "She totally wanted me dude, she had her legs spread open and everything".


I think that's called rape.  Being persistent with a woman is far removed from an act of rape.




> Why do people suck so much? And why are humans so obsessed with sex?


Biological imperative.




> We have to be the only species in this universe that actually takes enjoyment in watching people/animals (for the weirdos and pervs out there) copulate.


Nothin' beats mutton.




> I don't get the average person at all. That is all the average dude talks about- sports and T&A. *shrug*


Yeah, I don't know why a man would give a damn about sports when there is so much T&A out there.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Oh excuse me, is "discussion"  better wise ass.


Yeah, the word you use makes such a big difference.  People are actively doing something right under your nose, and your concern is the forum debate/discussion/whatever.

You might as well be joining them, girly man.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Always beware of the person who resorts to the line of reasoning that says, "Now why would somebody even be interested in that?  That is just so different.  I just don't understand it.  I don't really like it."  

It's often their lack of understanding, personal disapproval, and eventual labeling that leads to the exercise of petty power in the form of new laws.

----------


## jmdrake

> It is actually the group's deputy director, Debjani Roy not just the blogger from Reason.


Actually that's not true.  The blogger from reason claimed to have "scoured the website" looking for information about new laws.  He claimed not to have found any.  So he called Debjani Roy and she flat out lied to him and said they weren't advocating any new laws.  Yes flat out lied.  By saying the current laws were not adequate and linking to a Harvard Review Article proposing new laws, they were advocating new laws.





> It does matter since the debate is whether the organization we are talking about is or is not proposing new laws, not the one you listed.


Except the organization we're talking about *is* proposing new laws by saying the current laws aren't good enough and linking to a Harvard Review Article proposing new laws.  You are being obtuse.

----------


## kahless

> Yeah, the word you use makes such a big difference.  People are actively doing something right under your nose, and your concern is the forum debate/discussion/whatever.
> 
> You might as well be joining them, girly man.


Huh, what?  You little word Nazi take issue whether I use the word debate or discussion and you are call me a girly man. LMAO.

I think I can now relate to what it must be like for a woman that finds herself in a forum with hard left feminists that have not gotten laid in a while.  This thread is like the hard right male equivalent. (no pun intended)

----------


## kahless

> Actually that's not true.  The blogger from reason claimed to have "scoured the website" looking for information about new laws.  He claimed not to have found any.  So he called Debjani Roy and she flat out lied to him and said they weren't advocating any new laws.  Yes flat out lied.  By saying the current laws were not adequate and linking to a Harvard Review Article proposing new laws, they were advocating new laws.


Their law page seems to allude to it, so either one hand does not know what the other hand is doing in that organization or you are correct she flat out lied.




> Except the organization we're talking about *is* proposing new laws by saying the current laws aren't good enough and linking to a Harvard Review Article proposing new laws.  You are being obtuse.


Bull$#@!, the two "Street Harassment" organizations that the other wise ass posted here are not the same organization we are discussing.  Whatever facts he has on them do not apply to this organization.

----------


## jmdrake

> Their law page seems to allude to it, so either one hand does not know what the other hand is doing in that organization or you are correct she flat out lied.


My money is on she lied.  But it's possible that she's not aware of what's on her website.  That happened to Rand (maybe).




> Bull$#@!, the two "Street Harassment" organizations that the other wise ass posted here are not the same organization we are discussing.  Whatever facts he has on them do not apply to this organization.


I know they aren't the same organization.  But they are both pushing for the same thing via their websites, namely new laws against "street harassment".  The "wise ass" you are referring to called it a "similar organization".  You do understand what the word "similar" means right?  Hint, it doesn't mean "same".

Face it.  You got trolled by Rothbardian girl.  You're carrying her water and she hasn't even hung around to defend what is obviously a stupid position.  Some blogger from Reason claims not to have found any push for legislation, called someone from the organization, she said "Of course not!" to someone she had to *know* was against new laws, and that's supposed to clear up any "assumptions" that are actually based on facts taken straight from the Hollaback website?  Really, that just lowers my already jaded view of "Reason".  Sometimes they're good.  Sometimes they're full of crap.

----------


## pessimist

> Sex is not awkward for me, I've hooked up with girls without even talking to them or asking their name - we literally just look at each other, we can tell we want each other badly right then and there and we start making out.


I actually believe this. I've met a few of those type of women before and had to awkwardly turn them down. 




> It's a very primal experience


We are not in the jungle anymore 




> If I don't get laid for a few months I have to masturbate 1-3 times a day, which ends up taking up a lot of my time. On top of that, in this state every time I see an attractive female pretty much all I can think about is having sex. I'm pretty much constantly horny and masturbating only alleviates things for 1-4 hours, sometimes it alleviates nothing.


I don't get this- when a man ejaculates, all sexual desire ceases in most cases. I don't understand why having sex is any different than masturbating when it comes to DESIRE. Sure, it might not feel as good or have the same sensation but it stops the craving, doesn't it?




> And yes, it also explains many instances of rape for those who have strong sex drives, can't get laid and don't have strong moral or ethical values towards their fellow human beings or females. That's why I believe legal prostitution would help curb rape.


I agree that prostitution should be legal, but I am not following your logic here.

Rape = illegal (the worst crime one can commit imo)
Prostitution = illegal.

A sex crazed maniac would probably choose the latter over the former. A sadist on a power trip who also happens to be a sex crazed maniac will probably choose rape..

I don't think legal prostitution would have ANY impact on rape. However, it would probably be beneficial (in theory) to lonely sexually frustrated men who "can't get laid".

PS: "getting laid" isn't hard AT ALL. Just go to your local bar or club which are filled with loose women. I personally know a woman (possibly a nymphomaniac) who gives it away for free to just about any dude out there. There is one in EVERY town.  I could literally get laid with 100 percent certainty tonite if I really wanted to, however, I have no interest in any sex outside of a relationship. There is something low class and animalistic in that, and not something I can relate to at all. Kudos to those who enjoy it. It's just not for me, or something I can fully comprehend.

----------


## kahless

> I know they aren't the same organization.  But they are both pushing for the same thing via their websites, namely new laws against "street harassment".  The "wise ass" you are referring to called it a "similar organization".  You do understand what the word "similar" means right?  Hint, it doesn't mean "same".


I guess you missed this quote then.



> "I'm not sure why it should matter who proposes these laws."


My reply was it does matter since this video and website we are discussing and the last post prior to him posting that is specifically talking about Hollaback.  More power to him for the research on other entities and posting it here, but saying it should not matter who proposes it is bull$#@! since it does in the context of what we are discussing. 




> My money is on she lied.  But it's possible that she's not aware of what's on her website.  That happened to Rand (maybe).





> Face it.  You got trolled by Rothbardian girl.  You're carrying her water and she hasn't even hung around to defend what is obviously a stupid position. Some blogger from Reason claims not to have found any push for legislation, called someone from the organization, she said "Of course not!" to someone she had to *know* was against new laws, and that's supposed to clear up any "assumptions" that are actually based on facts taken straight from the Hollaback website?  Really, that just lowers my already jaded view of "Reason".  Sometimes they're good.  Sometimes they're full of crap.


I do not see that. I posted from the start that their might be a hidden legal agenda to pass legislation but just did not see it yet. I thought it was ridiculous to the point you guys were freaking out about it like they are going to criminalize saying "good morning".  I am actually more inclined to believe there is not a hidden agenda now after reading the Directors statement RB posted than I was before but I still cannot say I am %100 for sure considering the legal page of their website and neither can you it seems.

----------


## kahless

> ..Just go to your local bar or club which are filled with  loose women.


I have to cross the river more often. They do not hang out in bars over here anymore unless they are very young.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Huh, what?  You little word Nazi take issue whether I use the word debate or discussion and you are call me a girly man. LMAO.
> 
> I think I can now relate to what it must be like for a woman that finds herself in a forum with hard left feminists that have not gotten laid in a while.  This thread is like the hard right male equivalent. (no pun intended)



"Huh."  "What."  Exactly.  You don't even get it.  The words make no difference.

I told you about two organizations that advocate legislation, one of which actually proposed it to the Washington DC council.  I told you about another organization that lays the framework for how legislation should be worded.  I told you how their definition of harassment does not come close to any standard legal, historical, etc. definition.

This is explicitly spelled out.  It's no secret.  Your cognitive dissonance and desire to win an argument however, is so strong that you can't even see that people are doing this right under your nose.  They have you wrapped around their finger so tight that they've co-opted you.  Geez, talk about not getting laid.

If the liberty movement is about the narcissism and the self-indulgence of winning a forum argument, then it's no wonder it won't go anywhere.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Their law page seems to allude to it, so either one hand does not know what the other hand is doing in that organization or you are correct she flat out lied.



It has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing what others are doing.  Hollaback is a grassroots organization in dozens of US cities and countries around the world.  These group follow the national template and customize it for their locales.   

The local organizations lobby legislators for things like posting their literature in public transportation spots.  You can bet they float legislation.  I could infiltrate all 79 organizations and probably find evidence of this, but it would not make any difference to you because you have already ignored what has been placed under your nose.  Go ahead; tell me to join these organizations and find the evidence. 

Either you don't know the subtleties and logistics of how things work, or you just want to win a dumb forum argument.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> From the link (and confirmed in the video).
> 
> _The dude, who recorded the video ostensibly as a "social experiment" (but also definitely wanted to see if he could actually get laid), is shown walking up to 200 women and saying "Hi, I think you're really cute, do you wanna have sex with me?"
> 
> We think you're going to have to try a bit harder than that, "Brian".
> 
> He got laughter, confusion, outrage, a slap - and even, inexplicably, one woman who agreed to have sex with him and trotted off to his hotel room eagerly._
> 
> And ^that, my friends, is why some campaign against cat calling based on "shaming" the guys that do it *will never work*.  This guy got laid.  Sure he got slapped in the process of trying.  But at the end of the day he still got laid.  He got what he wanted, sex with no commitment that he didn't have to pay for, and all that was required of him was persistence.  He's the same kind of guy that would make a great Amway or other MLM "businessman".  Just keep persisting, despite all social pressure for you to stop, and eventually you will "get lucky".  (Pun very much intended).


Did he really?  I was under the impression that the video was just an experiment and they wouldn't actually be performing sex as a direct result of the video.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I realize that I must live on a different planet, but that whole having sex with strangers thing is just so weird to me.
> 
> Sex is already an awkward activity. I mean, meeting someone off the street, someone you've never seen or met before, and having sex with them would magnify it, wouldn't it? You know, there is a safer, alternative way to curb sexual desire rather than asking 100 women for sex- it's called masturbating.


Ain't nothin' like the real thing, baby.

Sex is only an awkward activity to you.  There's a reason why prostitution occurs.




> I get the impression that these highly persistent dudes are the same types that would take an unconscious drunk chick sprawled out on a bed as an act of courting and seduction.


You "get the impression"?  Well, I suppose that's probably just how you were trained to see guys who do that.  Pretty powerful training, wasn't it?




> Why do people suck so much? And why are humans so obsessed with sex? We have to be the only species in this universe that actually takes enjoyment in watching people/animals (for the weirdos and pervs out there) copulate.


I'm almost certain we're not.  There are animals that have recreational sex.  The dolphin comes to mind.  As for why?  Well, that question actually kind of perturbs me as well, but nonetheless, I sort of understand.  




> I don't get the average person at all. That is all the average dude talks about- sports and T&A. *shrug*


Yeah, we get it.  You're so not "mainstream."

----------


## jmdrake

> Did he really?  I was under the impression that the video was just an experiment and they wouldn't actually be performing sex as a direct result of the video.


Watch the video.  In the first 5 minutes there's a woman who agree to have sex with him and they walk off towards a hotel.  Whether they went through with that or not I don't know.  This wasn't a Kardasian tape after all.

----------


## kahless

> It has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing what others are doing.  Hollaback is a grassroots organization in dozens of US cities and countries around the world.  These group follow the national template and customize it for their locales.   
> 
> The local organizations lobby legislators for things like posting their literature in public transportation spots.  You can bet they float legislation.  I could infiltrate all 79 organizations and probably find evidence of this, but it would not make any difference to you because you have already ignored what has been placed under your nose.  Go ahead; tell me to join these organizations and find the evidence. 
> 
> Either you don't know the subtleties and logistics of how things work, or you just want to win a dumb forum argument.


You may have very valid points and I am not discounting anything you are saying about those organizations.  If you thought my first reply to you was rude or trying discount the research you had done that was never my intention.  All I was saying to you is that it does matter which one is promoting legislation since it remains to be seen definitively whether Hollaback is.

----------


## jmdrake

> I guess you missed this quote then.
> 
> 
> My reply was it does matter since this video and website we are discussing and the last post prior to him posting that is specifically talking about Hollaback.  More power to him for the research on other entities and posting it here, but saying it should not matter who proposes it is bull$#@! since it does in the context of what we are discussing. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see that. I posted from the start that their might be a hidden legal agenda to pass legislation but just did not see it yet. I thought it was ridiculous to the point you guys were freaking out about it like they are going to criminalize saying "good morning".  I am actually more inclined to believe there is not a hidden agenda now after reading the Directors statement RB posted than I was before but I still cannot say I am %100 for sure considering the legal page of their website and neither can you it seems.


There are none so blind as those who will not see.  Slimy groups like Hollaback love having people like you on their side.  They can openly push for legislation, then provide some statement saying "Oh of course we're not pushing for legislation" to disarm the people they know would oppose them.  Really, why do you think Hollaback would say "The current laws are not good enough.  Look <link>here</link> for proposed legislation" if they weren't pushing for new legislation?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Do I still have to accept that they are pushing for new laws, LOL.


Apparently, yes.  The fact that you automatically believed the link that RB provided is telling.  There is still evidence from their actual website that suggests otherwise.  They are apparently liars on top of everything else.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Watch the video.  In the first 5 minutes there's a woman who agree to have sex with him and they walk off towards a hotel.  Whether they went through with that or not I don't know.  This wasn't a Kardasian tape after all.


I just thought it would be interesting to find that out because I know they had another video where a woman walked up to guys and asked for sex, with the disclaimer that no sex would actually be performed.  If that actually did happen when the guy did it, it seems there was a bit of a double standard (the assumption being that the girl did not actually want sex and the guy did).

----------


## dannno

> I don't get this- when a man ejaculates, all sexual desire ceases in most cases. I don't understand why having sex is any different than masturbating when it comes to DESIRE. Sure, it might not feel as good or have the same sensation but it stops the craving, doesn't it?


No it doesn't, that's the whole point. I'm not sure all the reasons why, I think it may be due to several issues including body contact and fluid exchange from kissing, but I think one of the main reasons is the hormonal displacement from the fluid exchange during sex.. you see, when you have sex your sexual organs (male and female) actually soak up a lot of the juices and those juices contain hormones from the opposite sex. So does mucus from the mouth, I believe to a lesser extent. I notice a BJ usually calms me down for about a week or two, sex for 3-5 weeks and masturbating does almost nothing if it's been a long time since I've had sex. I've gotten done with a sesh before and had to go right back into one right after - with sex I have the same ability to ejaculate just as much as when I'm masturbating, but it is optional - I can take it but can also leave it if there is a good reason to.

Now, the only confusing part is the fact that having sex with a condom seems to fall somewhere in between getting a BJ and having sex without a condom, though I am pretty sure most every time I've had sex with a condom I've ALSO had a BJ without a condom so I guess that would help explain why, but even sex with a condom seems to help, there are probably some fluids that get soaked up at the base or something. 

A fleshlight feels almost as good as the real thing, except the body contact and the constant self lubrication, but literally does almost nothing in terms of longterm satisfaction. 





> I agree that prostitution should be legal, but I am not following your logic here.
> 
> Rape = illegal (the worst crime one can commit imo)
> Prostitution = illegal.
> 
> A sex crazed maniac would probably choose the latter over the former. 
> 
> 
> A sadist on a power trip who also happens to be a sex crazed maniac will probably choose rape..
> ...



Wait a minute, you yourself just said a 'sex crazed maniac' would choose prostitution (the latter) over rape (the former) - which I agree with - and that would reduce rape, right? In fact studies have shown most rapists prefer consensual sex over rape. I think a lot of guys who rape are doing it for the sexual satisfaction, I think a minority are doing it for other reasons. I never said rape would go away completely, I just said the instances of rape would be reduced if prostitution were legalized. You say that the sex crazed maniac would choose prostitution, then you say prostitution would have zero impact on rape, I don't get that at all?






> PS: "getting laid" isn't hard AT ALL. Just go to your local bar or club which are filled with loose women. I personally know a woman (possibly a nymphomaniac) who gives it away for free to just about any dude out there. There is one in EVERY town.  I could literally get laid with 100 percent certainty tonite if I really wanted to, however, I have no interest in any sex outside of a relationship. There is something low class and animalistic in that, and not something I can relate to at all. Kudos to those who enjoy it. It's just not for me, or something I can fully comprehend.


Getting laid FOR YOU is not hard at all because women can tell when guys are desperate for sex and those are precisely the guys they do not find attractive. 

Then there are guys who have social anxiety and are shy, they have a hard time getting laid too.. and if they have a strong sex drive then it just amplifies the entire problem due to the fact that they are desperate for sex.

----------


## kahless

> There are none so blind as those who will not see.  Slimy groups like Hollaback love having people like you on their side.  They can openly push for legislation, then provide some statement saying "Oh of course we're not pushing for legislation" to disarm the people they know would oppose them.  Really, why do you think Hollaback would say "The current laws are not good enough.  Look <link>here</link> for proposed legislation" if they weren't pushing for new legislation?


You know you can disagree with an organizations actions while agreeing with certain aspects, the body or spirit of their work.  That does not mean I am on anyone's side.

----------


## kahless

> Apparently, yes.  The fact that you automatically believed the link that RB provided is telling.  There is still evidence from their actual website that suggests otherwise.  They are apparently liars on top of everything else.


You nor I can say %100 for sure what their intentions are.  I just think it is funny how you and others can say that with absolute certainty they are going to ban non-threatening free speech on the street towards women even though a rep already came out and said otherwise. The issue you and others seem to have with my comments is because I only have my doubts about them and I think that saying they would ban non-threatening free speech is hyperbole.

I never once discounted the possibility legislation and in fact stated long prior to this early in the thread the possibility of a hidden legislative agenda.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> *Face it.  You got trolled by Rothbardian girl.  You're carrying her water and she hasn't even hung around to defend what is obviously a stupid position.*  Some blogger from Reason claims not to have found any push for legislation, called someone from the organization, she said "Of course not!" to someone she had to *know* was against new laws, and that's supposed to clear up any "assumptions" that are actually based on facts taken straight from the Hollaback website?  Really, that just lowers my already jaded view of "Reason".  Sometimes they're good.  Sometimes they're full of crap.



Real life was calling. It is not my intention to troll anyone here, FWIW. 

I'm not really seeing how the main focus of this organization is to enact laws, and am not sure the "omg statists" hysteria is justified here. They devote several paragraphs to activism efforts that bring more attention to the problem (vs. one talking about lobbying), and they rightly note that current laws often do not take women's issues seriously. This is actually not such a controversial thing. Listing "*proposed* remedies" is not necessarily an explicit endorsement of any such remedies. You are inferring things that aren't necessarily there; any reasonable person wishing to look more into an issue such as this one would probably want the legal history, and a history of proposed changes to the law. They even go on to state that the remedies being proposed have not been useful or successful in combating harassment, and so that is why they choose to explicitly focus on non-legislative ways of solving the problem.

----------


## jmdrake

> Real life was calling. It is not my intention to troll anyone here, FWIW.


Ah yes.  "Up yours" animated gifs are so mature.




> I'm not really seeing how the main focus of this organization is to enact laws, and am not sure the "omg statists" hysteria is justified here. They devote several paragraphs to activism efforts that bring more attention to the problem (vs. one talking about lobbying), and they rightly note that current laws often do not take women's issues seriously. This is actually not such a controversial thing. Listing "*proposed* remedies" is not necessarily an explicit endorsement of any such remedies. You are inferring things that aren't necessarily there; any reasonable person wishing to look more into an issue such as this one would probably want the legal history, and a history of proposed changes to the law. They even go on to state that the remedies being proposed have not been useful or successful in combating harassment, and so that is why they choose to explicitly focus on non-legislative ways of solving the problem.


Their advice to women being street harassed?  Just walk on by and ignore the harasser.  Hmmmmmm....who said that?  Oh yeah.  *Me!* 

Further they did *not* say that proposed legislation remedies have not been successful.  They said *current* legal remedies have not been successful.  That's why new ones are being *proposed*.  From their website:

_Given the shortcomings of the law in this arena, a number of legal scholars and activists have suggested specific legal reforms that have yet to be implemented. For a thorough review of current legal concepts used against street harassment and their failures, as well as proposed remedies, see Cynthia Grant Bowman’s “Street Harassment and the Informal Ghettoization of Women,” published in the Harvard Law Review and available here.

Current Remedies and Their Failures

Currently, a number of legal tools exist to combat street harassment. While some of these have proved successful on occasion, none are an effective remedy in part due to factors described below. It should be noted, however, that there exists one particular area where women have been extended greater protection: common carriers (buses, trains, and other transportation forms), and hotel guest situations. Women may recover damages more readily if harassed by an employee—or even another patron—of a common carrier or hotel. More information on this follows below. - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/....PUqqrn0l.dpuf_

Please re-read this (assuming you actually read it the first time) and explain why you have twisted their statements from "Current legal remedies have not proven successful so legal scholars are proposing new ones" to "Proposed legal remedies have not proven successful so we're focusing on a non legal approach."

----------


## jmdrake

> You nor I can say %100 for sure what their intentions are.  I just think it is funny how you and others can say that with absolute certainty they are going to ban non-threatening free speech on the street towards women even though a rep already came out and said otherwise. The issue you and others seem to have with my comments is because I only have my doubts about them and I think that saying they would ban non-threatening free speech is hyperbole.
> 
> I never once discounted the possibility legislation and in fact stated long prior to this early in the thread the possibility of a hidden legislative agenda.


You don't say "Current legal remedies haven't proven successful but here are some new laws being proposed" if you don't want new laws.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Ah yes.  "Up yours" animated gifs are so mature.
> 
> 
> 
> Their advice to women being street harassed?  Just walk on by and ignore the harasser.  Hmmmmmm....who said that?  Oh yeah.  *Me!* 
> 
> Further they did *not* say that proposed legislation remedies have not been successful.  They said *current* legal remedies have not been successful.  That's why new ones are being *proposed*.  From their website:
> 
> _Given the shortcomings of the law in this arena, a number of legal scholars and activists have suggested specific legal reforms that have yet to be implemented. For a thorough review of current legal concepts used against street harassment and their failures, as well as proposed remedies, see Cynthia Grant Bowman’s “Street Harassment and the Informal Ghettoization of Women,” published in the Harvard Law Review and available here.
> ...


You still have not provided any proof that Hollaback is endorsing any of the new laws being proposed by legal scholars. Simply listing them is not akin to an endorsement.

----------


## kahless

> You don't say "Current legal remedies haven't proven successful but here are some new laws being proposed" if you don't want new laws.


I looked at that page a few times before posting here and that is why I said early on I have my doubts.  I also found this quote on another page.




> Initiate Legislative Advocacy: You can create change around an issue through legislative advocacy. When you conduct legislative advocacy, your goal is to work with government officials who can publicize the mission of your organization and partner with you on upcoming projects. - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/....EnPFfoCg.dpuf


It however remains unclear what kind of behavior they are proposing legislation for.  As pointed out there is a big difference between cat-calling and sexual assault.  But if you look on their website, sexual assault and various forms of it is mixed in with the street harassment behaviors listed.

This is why I said some pages back thinking out loud that if it they are seeking to change legislation related to sexual assault then what is specifically not covered by the laws we have now which would likely be dependent on where the incident occurs in the US. 

I also see they are an international organization. How much of this legislative advocacy is intended for countries where women do not have the legal recourse we have here.

So far I see no proposal to specifically limit non-threatening speech between a man and a woman.  They are leaving themselves open to interpretation which is the problem.

----------


## jmdrake

> You still have not provided any proof that Hollaback is endorsing any of the new laws being proposed by legal scholars. Simply listing them is not akin to an endorsement.


Listing them after saying "The current laws aren't good enough" is an endorsement of new laws even if it's not an endorsement of any particular new law.  Really, if this was a pro life website that said "Current laws don't protect the unborn but here are some legal scholars that are proposing some new ones" I doubt very seriously that you would count that as anything other than an endorsement of new anti abortion laws.  At the very least this proves the woman quoted by the Reason blogger was lying when she said her organization was *against* new laws.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You still have not provided any proof that Hollaback is endorsing any of the new laws being proposed by legal scholars. Simply listing them is not akin to an endorsement.


You cannot be that dense.  If you just stepped off a spaceship and read that article without and prior bias, you would think they were advocating new laws.  There's really no doubt that that's what they're proposing.  Stop acting like you don't realize it.

----------


## pessimist

> No it doesn't, that's the whole point. I'm not sure all the reasons why, I think it may be due to several issues including body contact and fluid exchange from kissing, but I think one of the main reasons is the hormonal displacement from the fluid exchange during sex.. you see, when you have sex your sexual organs (male and female) actually soak up a lot of the juices and those juices contain hormones from the opposite sex. So does mucus from the mouth, I believe to a lesser extent. I notice a BJ usually calms me down for about a week or two, sex for 3-5 weeks and masturbating does almost nothing if it's been a long time since I've had sex. I've gotten done with a sesh before and had to go right back into one right after - with sex I have the same ability to ejaculate just as much as when I'm masturbating, but it is optional - I can take it but can also leave it if there is a good reason to.
> 
> Now, the only confusing part is the fact that having sex with a condom seems to fall somewhere in between getting a BJ and having sex without a condom, though I am pretty sure most every time I've had sex with a condom I've ALSO had a BJ without a condom so I guess that would help explain why, but even sex with a condom seems to help, there are probably some fluids that get soaked up at the base or something. 
> 
> A fleshlight feels almost as good as the real thing, except the body contact and the constant self lubrication, but literally does almost nothing in terms of longterm satisfaction.


I think I'll probably need a testosterone shot and a high sex drive to be able comprehend all that. 





> Wait a minute, you yourself just said a 'sex crazed maniac' would choose prostitution (the latter) over rape (the former) - which I agree with - and that would reduce rape, right? In fact studies have shown most rapists prefer consensual sex over rape. I think a lot of guys who rape are doing it for the sexual satisfaction, I think a minority are doing it for other reasons. I never said rape would go away completely, I just said the instances of rape would be reduced if prostitution were legalized. You say that the sex crazed maniac would choose prostitution, then you say prostitution would have zero impact on rape, I don't get that at all?


Wait! What? They are both ILLEGAL. Why on earth wouldn't a rapist just hire a prostitute and risk being slapped on the wrist and being known as the town John, rather than destroying a life and risk going to prison if it's purely about sex?

We are on totally different pages here. I simply don't understand that at all. Rapists will rape whether they can legally hire a hooker or not. 





> Getting laid FOR YOU is not hard at all because women can tell when guys are desperate for sex and those are precisely the guys they do not find attractive. 
> 
> Then there are guys who have social anxiety and are shy, they have a hard time getting laid too.. and if they have a strong sex drive then it just amplifies the entire problem due to the fact that they are desperate for sex.


it's NOT easy for me, because I don't have casual sex. However, I do know a few women who I can CONFIDENTLY state would have sex with me if I called them up to hangout. I don't dig chicks like that though, and that isn't my thing. I also have social anxiety 

Unless you're creepy, hideously ugly, or have some wretched odor coming off your body- I don't see why one can't "get laid". That seems to be a hugely popular thing (that's all folks seem to want to talk about), and casual sex seems to be whats in vogue.

----------


## jmdrake

> I looked at that page a few times before posting here and that is why I said early on I have my doubts.  I also found this quote on another page.
> 
> 
> 
> It however remains unclear what kind of behavior they are proposing legislation for.  As pointed out there is a big difference between cat-calling and sexual assault.  But if you look on their website, sexual assault and various forms of it is mixed in with the street harassment behaviors listed.
> 
> This is why I said some pages back thinking out loud that if it they are seeking to change legislation related to sexual assault then what is specifically not covered by the laws we have now which would likely be dependent on where the incident occurs in the US. 
> 
> I also see they are an international organization. How much of this legislative advocacy is intended for countries where women do not have the legal recourse we have here.
> ...


More from their legal analysis page.

_
The law has historically failed to take seriously numerous issues affecting women’s lives, and street harassment is no exception. Although several legal remedies could potentially be employed to combat street harassment, the current state of the legal system makes success highly unlikely.

Judges, legislators, and other decision-makers—mostly male—have generally understood street harassment as a trivial occurrence and thus not within the proper scope of the law. 
.........
Street Harassment as Trivial

There exist very few reported street harassment cases in which convictions have been upheld. As a dissenting judge in one of these rare examples indicated, it seems to be the pervasiveness of street harassment that contributes to its neglect by the law. Referring to the fact that women are frequently assaulted with catcalls and sexual suggestions, he asserted that a mere indecent request was insufficient to violate the anti-harassment statute in question. Commonwealth v. Duncan, 363 A.2d 803, 804-05 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976). He also felt it would be unwise to criminalize such behavior because: “(1) the state runs the risk of criminalizing generally accepted behavior, leaving the actor without reasonable notice that his conduct is criminal; (2) such incidents are too frequent for a justice system to handle them efficiently; (3) courts cannot be expected to arbitrate what are frequently personal disputes by use of the criminal process.” Duncan at 804-05. Since street harassment is so widespread and generally regarded as trivial, this judge feels that there is no reason to do anything about it legally.

The same attitudes that permit and foster street harassment in the first place thus also permeate the legal system, creating a serious impediment to the successful use of any existing remedies against street harassment. Take for example the civil remedy of “intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is defined as “extreme and outrageous conduct [that] intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another,”Restatement (Second) of Torts. Street harassment as experienced by countless women clearly fits this definition, yet there are few reported cases in which this remedy has been successfully used in a street harassment context. Much of the difficulty lies in establishing street harassment constitutes “extreme and outrageous conduct.” After all, if street harassment was generally regarded as “extreme and outrageous,” it wouldn’t present such an omnipresent problem._

Now, here's what *everybody*, including you and Rothbardian Girl, should be able to agree on.  One of the main goals of this group is to change the culture so that catcalling is taken seriously.  And what would be a benefit to that according to them?  Well judges would be more willing to convict a man off of a "mere indecent request."  So the libertarian "We don't want new laws" front that was portrayed to the blogger from Reason.com is *not* what they say on their website.  Now one *might* be willing to accept that all they want to criminalize is some guy saying to a woman "You're cute.  Would you like to have sex?"  The problem is that the "evidence" that they present of the need for "change" isn't some guy asking for sex.  It's guys saying "Good evening" and "you look like a thousand dollars."  *They* are the ones that conflate the issues and I believe they've done that on purpose.  Without conflating the innocent greetings with the guy walking beside the woman for 5 minutes, they basically have no evidence at all.  Frankly I don't think the guy asking for sex should be criminalized.  I agree with the judge that they excoriate that a "mere indecent request" should not be in itself enough to warrant some kind of criminal or civil penalty.  Of course that didn't stop you from suggesting that guys like me wouldn't want there to be laws against some man grabbing a woman's butt.  Remember this stupid comment you made?




> You say that now but I suspect if the video showed women getting their butts pinched or grabbed or were groped, you and a couple others here would probably be posting saying it is only a natural mating dance and that the woman are Progressive bitches for filing charges.


I wonder why it is your willing to give this website every possible benefit of the doubt such that it can openly say the current laws aren't good enough, *link to legislation proposed by "legal scholars"*, and you just take their "word for it" because they tell Reason "Oh we don't want new laws" but somehow you think I agree with women getting sexually assaulted?  Some kind of Stockholm syndrome going on?  Only assume the worst about pro liberty men and assume the best about liberal feminists?    You know what.  I hope these laws get passed.  In fact I hope they go so freaking far that anything the "queen bee" in the OP video tagged as harassment get's criminalized.  Then I hope you get some dust in your eye, accidentally wink at someone you don't know (cause it sounds like you are too indoctrinated to actually flirt with a woman you don't know) and you get brought up on street harassment charges.  In fact, screw it all.  May Rand lose and the economy implode and the FEMA camps kick up into high gear and elections be banned and the surveillance state kicks it up a notch.  Let everything that some of us have been fighting against for years just come steamrolling through because somehow this will make some feminist somewhere feel more comfortable walking down the street.  Because the idea that there are people in the world that want to restrict freedom is just some "right wing conspiracy".  It doesn't matter if they actually say it right out on their website.  No no.  As long as they can find some gullible fool "journalist" to listen to their spin, the spin *must* be the truth!  This all reminds me of a movie.

----------


## Danke

> However, I do know a few women who I can CONFIDENTLY state would have sex with me if I called them up to hangout. I don't dig chicks like that though, and that isn't my thing.


 PM sent.

----------


## pessimist

> PM sent.



call me, maybe?

----------


## pessimist

they only like girly men, are you up for the challenge?

----------


## dannno

> Wait! What? They are both ILLEGAL. Why on earth wouldn't a rapist just hire a prostitute and risk being slapped on the wrist and being known as the town John, rather than destroying a life and risk going to prison if it's purely about sex?
> 
> We are on totally different pages here. I simply don't understand that at all. Rapists will rape whether they can legally hire a hooker or not.


There are a ton of reasons why a rapist might choose to rape a girl rather than get an illegal prostitute as opposed to getting a legal prostitute. One of them is the fact that yes, both are illegal. Make one of them legal (hint: not rape, prostitution) and you take down a few obstacles right there. Accessibility and desirability are two other main drivers, and then there is the fact that I don't think most rapes are pre-meditated but actually happen at the spur of the moment making accessibility an even bigger driver.

As far as accessibility, I live in a pretty big town and I've never seen a female prostitute - or at least I've never been aware of the presence of a female prostitute. Trust me, even I'm pretty baffled at that. I have, however, seen a few transvestite prostitutes. I'm pretty sure most of the prostitutes here are transvestites, and that is obviously something most men would want to avoid.

Craigslist has prostitutes, but some of them are police stings so it is very risky. So accessibility is a big concern. Illegal prostitutes have a very high rate of STIs.

Then there is the fact that I don't think most guys PLAN to rape women - men don't plan to rape their dates, they plan to have consensual sex with them. When they both get drunk and are messing around and she says 'no' he may decide to do it anyway. Not because he wants to rape, but because he wants to have sex. Remember, most rapists PREFER consensual sex to rape, that is your answer right there, that's really all you need to know. So that's called date rape, it's pretty common, most girls are raped by guys they know. Or if a girl gets too drunk and passes out the guy she is with may decide to do it. He may be impaired at the time as well.

So my point was, if prostitution was more accessible (legal) and clean (legal) and you could keep a clean record (legal), guys who were about to rape their date might just decide to go with the legal, accessible option. They can go into a clean place, find a girl who is just as hot and pay for it rather than rape. They can do it that night or the next day. Pretty simple. It's not that simple if prostitution is illegal.

----------


## pessimist

> There are a ton of reasons why a rapist might choose to rape a girl rather than get an illegal prostitute as opposed to getting a legal prostitute. One of them is the fact that yes, both are illegal. Make one of them legal and you take down a few obstacles right there. Accessibility and desirability are two other main drivers, and then there is the fact that I don't think most rapes are pre-meditated but actually happen at the spur of the moment.
> 
> As far as accessibility, I live in a pretty big town and I've never seen a female prostitute - or at least I've never been aware of the presence of a female prostitute. Trust me, even I'm pretty baffled at that. I have, however, seen a few transvestite prostitutes. I'm pretty sure most of the prostitutes here are transvestites, and that is obviously something most men would want to avoid.
> 
> Craigslist has prostitutes, but some of them are police stings so it is very risky. So accessibility is a big concern. Illegal prostitutes have a very high rate of STIs.
> 
> Then there is the fact that I don't think most guys PLAN to rape women - men don't plan to rape their dates, they plan to have consensual sex with them. When they both get drunk and are messing around and she says 'no' he may decide to do it anyway. That's called date rape, it's pretty common, most girls are raped by guys they know. Or if a girl gets too drunk and passes out the guy she is with may decide to do it. He may be impaired at the time as well.
> 
> *So my point was, if prostitution was more accessible (legal) and clean (legal) and you could keep a clean record (legal), guys who were about to rape their date might just decide to go with the legal option.*



I'm not buying it. It takes a certain _type_ of person to rape. Whether it's having sex with an unconscious body at a party, drugging a woman at a bar, raping a stepdaughter, or jumping out of the bushes and raping a jogger in a park at gunpoint- it doesn't matter.

I do agree that there are instances where the guy just gets out of control- they are heavily into it, she decides she has had enough, and he continues until she submits. Those aren't planned- I agree.

But I am not buying most date rapes are unplanned. Many of those $#@!s intend on getting laid no matter what. Some of them even drug their victims, or try to get them drunk. Think college frat bro supplying alcohol to a bunch of underage high school kids.

----------


## dannno

> I'm not buying it. It takes a certain _type_ of person to rape. Whether it's having sex with an unconscious body at a party, drugging a woman at a bar, raping a stepdaughter, or jumping out of the bushes and raping a jogger in a park at gunpoint- it doesn't matter.


I agree it takes a certain kind of person to rape, I think it takes a different kind of person to rape at gunpoint or knife point than a drunk girl at a party or whatever but both are certainly very bad... but it also requires motive - I know I have the motive or desire to have sex with girls who have turned me down and if I had no morals or ethics I very well could be a rapist quite possibly, I think pretty much any guy with a strong sex drive could be a rapist if they lack morals or ethics. I don't think it is much different than somebody who steals. Fortunately I have a lot of empathy for others and I could never do that. In fact, rape was extremely common back in the day, it was almost really part of life. I'm glad that's no longer the case, but that is how humans lived.  So it is the combination of motive and bad morals and ethics. 





> But I am not buying most date rapes are unplanned. Many of those $#@! intend on getting laid no matter what. Some of them even drug their victims, or try to get them drunk. Think college frat bro supplying alcohol to a bunch of underage high school kids.


It's more complicated than that... guys generally don't get girls drunk so they pass out so they can rape them.. Women are more likely to want to have sex when they are drunk, THAT is why they get them drunk. In fact, that's a big complaint I have about this whole anti-rape campaigns out there - they don't take into account that women actually get drunk and not only consent but may initiate sex with a guy (which I'm sure you've seen before) and then forget the whole thing the next day. Some girls actually get drunk on purpose so they can hook up with guys and not remember. I've personally known girls who do this. I think they should have the right to do it, and I think guys should have the right to be with them. The problem is you can't always distinguish those girls from the second type: In other cases, other girls may regret what they did and have no idea whether they consented or not, even though they may very well have initiated the sexual activity.. So they may decide, weeks later, that they were raped when, well, maybe they were, but it's very possible that they weren't raped and they actually initiated the sexual activity. Guys who are less attractive are more likely to be victimized by these type of incidents because the girl will generally feel more guilty about having sex with an unattractive guy than an attractive one. 

The irony is that feminists generally like the idea that women aren't held to double standards and don't need to feel guilty about making their own sexual choices, but then when society causes a woman to feel guilty for having sex, those emotions can turn an innocent guy into a convicted rapist.

----------


## kahless

> Remember this stupid comment you made?


I can't remember now but I thought that quote of mine you posted was because it should not be so bizarrely foreign for you to understand that the behavior is sometimes threatening and scares the crap out of women.  There was nothing really that controversial in my comments and if you have no issue with the behavior then I was thinking along the lines you probably do not have problem with ass grabbing.

The inflection there was intended to keep that a light comment but if it did not come across fairly to you it was not my intention to offend.




> I wonder why it is your willing to give this website every possible benefit of the doubt such that it can openly say the current laws aren't good enough, *link to legislation proposed by "legal scholars"*, and you just take their "word for it" because they tell Reason "Oh we don't want new laws" but somehow you think I agree with women getting sexually assaulted?  *Some kind of Stockholm syndrome going on?*  Only assume the worst about pro liberty men and assume the best about liberal feminists?    You know what.  I hope these laws get passed.  In fact I hope they go so freaking far that anything the "queen bee" in the OP video tagged as harassment get's criminalized.  Then I hope you get some dust in your eye, accidentally wink at someone you don't know (cause it sounds like you are too indoctrinated to actually flirt with a woman you don't know) and you get brought up on street harassment charges.  In fact, screw it all.  May Rand lose and the economy implode and the FEMA camps kick up into high gear and elections be banned and the surveillance state kicks it up a notch.  Let everything that some of us have been fighting against for years just come steamrolling through because somehow this will make some feminist somewhere feel more comfortable walking down the street.  Because the idea that there are people in the world that want to restrict freedom is just some "right wing conspiracy".  It doesn't matter if they actually say it right out on their website.  No no.  As long as they can find some gullible fool "journalist" to listen to their spin, the spin *must* be the truth!  This all reminds me of a movie.


You may or may not be proven to be right at some point but you can't be definitively sure because see what I wrote above http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5691248

Don't I wish there was some Stockholm syndrome with these women and they want to take advantage of me.

----------


## jmdrake

> I can't remember now but I thought that quote of mine you posted was because it should not be so bizarrely foreign for you to understand that the behavior is sometimes threatening and scares the crap out of women.  There was nothing really that controversial in my comments and if you have no issue with the behavior then I was thinking along the lines you probably do not have problem with ass grabbing.


Here is the conversation.




> Why do we keep conflating actual *physical* harassment with cat-calling?  They are two very different things, and the distinction needs to be made clear.  The video doesn't discuss physical harassment because the people who made it are after the cat-callers, the non-violent ones.  Here we are just buying the idea that cat-calling is somehow the same thing as being groped/assaulted on the street.  It's not and it needs to stop.





> I watched her interviews and read several articles which she says she was groped the month prior to this video.  You seem to have this old fashioned view of cat-calling and maybe a West Virginia view of cat-calling -- some guys whistling from a far and throwing in some compliments which most women do not fear nor give a damn about.  This is not West Virginia, this is NYC where it takes on a whole new meaning.  Women being followed and harassed is a bit different.





> If she was groped, she should have filed charges for being *groped*.  And most of the guys in the video that this drama queen was complaining about *were* just whistling from a far or throwing out compliments or even saying "Good evening"!  That's right.  Saying "good evening" is something this silly woman wants laws passed against!  And as for the guy following her, what kind of law would you draft against that?  If a man walks beside a woman for more than 30 seconds charge him with a crime?





> You say that now but I suspect if the video showed women getting their butts pinched or grabbed or were groped, you and a couple others here would probably be posting saying it is only a natural mating dance and that the woman are Progressive bitches for filing charges.


So let's seek. PaulConventionWV complains about you conflating physical assault with cat calling, you say the women said in another interview that she was groped, I said if she was groped she should have filed charges,  you said that meant I was okay with women being groped.  And your tirade makes sense because....?  




> The inflection there was intended to keep that a light comment but if it did not come across fairly to you it was not my intention to offend.


I thought your whole campaign was to make people take verbal street harassment more seriously.  So you do that by turning actual sexual assault into a joke?  




> You may or may not be proven to be right at some point but you can't be definitively sure because see what I wrote above http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5691248
> 
> Don't I wish there was some Stockholm syndrome with these women and they want to take advantage of me.


They'd probably make you just watch and then prosecute you for leering.

----------


## pessimist

> I agree it takes a certain kind of person to rape, I think it takes a different kind of person to rape at gunpoint or knife point than a drunk girl at a party or whatever but both are certainly very bad... but it also requires motive


I'm someone that tries to look at things from multiple perspectives and attempts to see situations from another POV. I just cannot seem to put myself in the mind of a rapist.

Anyway, the motive is self-gratification. Simple as that. Whether you're doing it violently or otherwise, you're still getting your jollies off by RAPING- whether its purely out of sexual desire or some psychological complex should be irrelevant. It's all self-gratification at the expense of a human life.




> I know I have the motive or desire to have sex with girls who have turned me down and if I had no morals or ethics I very well could be a rapist quite possibly, I think pretty much any guy with a strong sex drive could be a rapist if they lack morals or ethics.


I don't get this either. I find it sad and frightening that people need a freaking moral code not to rape.




> I don't think it is much different than somebody who steals


Huge difference between the two. 




> . Fortunately I have a lot of empathy for others and I could never do that. In fact, rape was extremely common back in the day, it was almost really part of life. I'm glad that's no longer the case, but that is how humans lived. So it is the combination of motive and bad morals and ethics.



Well, one would hope that the further we're removed from the jungle the more 'humane' society will become. I have yet to see widespread evidence of that, though.




> It's more complicated than that... guys generally don't get girls drunk so they pass out so they can rape them.. Women are more likely to want to have sex when they are drunk, THAT is why they get them drunk.


Well yeah! Duh! I just meant that sex is on the mind before the potential date rapist enters the party or bar or club.




> n fact, that's a big complaint I have about this whole anti-rape campaigns out there - they don't take into account that women actually get drunk and not only consent but may initiate sex with a guy (which I'm sure you've seen before) and then forget the whole thing the next day. Some girls actually get drunk on purpose so they can hook up with guys and not remember. I've personally known girls who do this. I think they should have the right to do it, and I think guys should have the right to be with them. The problem is you can't always distinguish those girls from the second type: In other cases, other girls may regret what they did and have no idea whether they consented or not, even though they may very well have initiated the sexual activity.. So they may decide, weeks later, that they were raped when, well, maybe they were, but it's very possible that they weren't raped and they actually initiated the sexual activity. Guys who are less attractive are more likely to be victimized by these type of incidents because the girl will generally feel more guilty about having sex with an unattractive guy than an attractive one. 
> 
> The irony is that feminists generally like the idea that women aren't held to double standards and don't need to feel guilty about making their own sexual choices, but then when society causes a woman to feel guilty for having sex, those emotions can turn an innocent guy into a convicted rapist.


I have no interest in talking about feminism. I am talking about rape. I don't need a campaign or some feminist to tell me that rape is wrong. I haven't been brainwashed. I just have an emotional, visceral reaction to it for some reason. I find it worse than murder in most cases. I don't know why.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm someone that tries to look at things from multiple perspectives and attempts to see situations from another POV. I just cannot seem to put myself in the mind of a rapist.
> 
> Anyway, the motive is self-gratification. Simple as that. Whether you're doing it violently or otherwise, you're still getting your jollies off by RAPING- whether its purely out of sexual desire or some psychological complex should be irrelevant. It's all self-gratification at the expense of a human life.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get this either. I find it sad and frightening that people need a freaking moral code not to rape.
> 
> 
> ...


Worse than murder?  That I cannot understand.  I may be a man, but I'm pretty sure a woman would rather be raped and alive than just murdered.  Don't misconstrue what I'm saying, either.  If the alternative to rape is death, I think most people, regardless of gender, would prefer being the victim of rape over murder.

----------


## pessimist

> Worse than murder?  That I cannot understand.  I may be a man, but I'm pretty sure a woman would rather be raped and alive than just murdered.  Don't misconstrue what I'm saying, either.  If the alternative to rape is death, I think most people, regardless of gender, would prefer being the victim of rape over murder.



I am not saying it is rational. I said I can't explain it- it is some weird feeling. Death to me is the end. Rape is a life long scar one has to carry. 

I'm someone that cannot tolerate seeing ANY violence against children or animals or witness any kind suffering of them. My nervous system goes haywire. However, I can watch someone get hacked to death with a machete in a movie with indifference. I have selective empathy and sympathy or something. *shrug* 

So for me to try to logically explain why I find rape worse (in many cases) to murder- I will be unable to do so.

EDIT: Poorly worded on my part. Just wanted to say *I am not* pro-murder.

----------


## kahless

> Here is the conversation.


Wow you got really butt hurt over that ass grabbing comment of mine. 

You chose to read those posts as a tirade or take offense but like I said no offense was intended. At one point I have a few posts after that where I tried to add a little levity since I figured I may have ruffled a few feathers unintentionally.

He chose to believe I was saying all cat-calling = sexual assault but I never said that. Regardless that has ZERO to do with the point I was trying to make with him.  I was trying to make the point along the same lines that Johnhowe kept reluctantly coming back to the thread to make with him.

The point I was making was along the lines of that the behavior is sometimes scary to women and how it sometimes leads to sexual assault or women have the fear it may lead to sexual assault. (they never know sometimes which way it is going to go, so no harm done if they want to have a campaign for civility). That really should not be all that hard for you to understand nor is saying that controversial. 

I even have several posts saying I believe cat calling != sexual assault.  However that site includes sexual assault as part of street harassment - cat-calling.  So sexual assault related to cat-calling is fair game in this discussion, quite relevant and should not have been so shocking to you or him that I brought that into the thread like others here did.




> They'd probably make you just watch and then prosecute you for leering.


AHHH, LOL

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I agree it takes a certain kind of person to rape, I think it takes a different kind of person to rape at gunpoint or knife point than a drunk girl at a party or whatever but both are certainly very bad... but it also requires motive - I know I have the motive or desire to have sex with girls who have turned me down and if I had no morals or ethics I very well could be a rapist quite possibly, I think pretty much any guy with a strong sex drive could be a rapist if they lack morals or ethics. I don't think it is much different than somebody who steals. Fortunately I have a lot of empathy for others and I could never do that. In fact, rape was extremely common back in the day, it was almost really part of life. I'm glad that's no longer the case, but that is how humans lived.  So it is the combination of motive and bad morals and ethics. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's more complicated than that... guys generally don't get girls drunk so they pass out so they can rape them.. Women are more likely to want to have sex when they are drunk, THAT is why they get them drunk. In fact, that's a big complaint I have about this whole anti-rape campaigns out there - they don't take into account that women actually get drunk and not only consent but may initiate sex with a guy (which I'm sure you've seen before) and then forget the whole thing the next day. Some girls actually get drunk on purpose so they can hook up with guys and not remember. I've personally known girls who do this. I think they should have the right to do it, and I think guys should have the right to be with them. The problem is you can't always distinguish those girls from the second type: In other cases, other girls may regret what they did and have no idea whether they consented or not, even though they may very well have initiated the sexual activity.. So they may decide, weeks later, that they were raped when, well, maybe they were, but it's very possible that they weren't raped and they actually initiated the sexual activity. Guys who are less attractive are more likely to be victimized by these type of incidents because the girl will generally feel more guilty about having sex with an unattractive guy than an attractive one. 
> 
> The irony is that feminists generally like the idea that women aren't held to double standards and don't need to feel guilty about making their own sexual choices, but then when society causes a woman to feel guilty for having sex, those emotions can turn an innocent guy into a convicted rapist.


I know exactly what you're talking about, dannno.  I hate to say it, but I really think there's a gray area in the law.  Alcohol messes everything up when it comes to consent because it oftentimes makes clear consent nearly impossible.  Then, we have the issue of the woman sitting in her apartment the next morning trying to decide if she was raped last night.  

I may get flamed for this, but in cases like that, I'm going to stick with 'innocent until proven guilty' and say that the man should not be blamed.  I'm not going to try to tell women what to do, but if I was really, truly raped, I'm pretty sure it would consume my every thought.  There would be no doubt in my mind.  The thought of consent would be out of the question.  If you have to sit in your apartment and debate about whether you consented or not, then I can't call that rape.  It's not worth ruining a man's life over it if you literally can't remember if you consented because the very fact that you had the presence of mind to sit and think about it in those terms proves that it didn't traumatize you to the point of being scared to go out anymore.  

It is pretty well-known that women have the power to ruin a man's life with this one claim.  A little acting and he may go to prison for the rest of his life.  I'm not saying that a lot of women do that, but it can be done, and I can only hope and ask that women don't abuse the power they have in those situations.  In fact, because of this, it is advisable for both men and women to avoid sex while drunk.  Women, if you think it's something you'll regret, don't do it.  Just because you can go out there and "see what happens" doesn't mean you should.  If the idea of non-consensual sex doesn't scare you enough to avoid putting yourself in a situation where it could happen, then it's best to avoid it altogether and not potentially expose yourself to the predicament where a man's life hangs in the balance.

If you're not sure about what you want, then a college frat party is probably the worst possible place to try to hook up.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I am not saying it is rational. I said I can't explain it- it is some weird feeling. Death to me is the end. Rape is a life long scar one has to carry.


What do you know about it?




> I'm someone that cannot tolerate seeing ANY violence against children or animals or witness any kind suffering of them. My nervous system goes haywire. However, I can watch someone get hacked to death with a machete in a movie with indifference. I have selective empathy and sympathy or something. *shrug* 
> 
> So for me to try to logically explain why I find rape worse (in many cases) to murder- I will be unable to do so.


As long as you know how irrational it sounds.  I'm still curious what makes you think of rape in such terms, though, because I'm assuming that you haven't actually suffered from it before, or else you probably wouldn't be here, talking about it.

----------


## pessimist

> I know exactly what you're talking about, dannno.  I hate to say it, but I really think there's a gray area in the law.  Alcohol messes everything up when it comes to consent because it oftentimes makes clear consent nearly impossible.  Then, we have the issue of the woman sitting in her apartment the next morning trying to decide if she was raped last night.  
> 
> I may get flamed for this, but in cases like that, I'm going to stick with 'innocent until proven guilty' and say that the man should not be blamed.  I'm not going to try to tell women what to do, but if I was really, truly raped, I'm pretty sure it would consume my every thought.  There would be no doubt in my mind.  The thought of consent would be out of the question.  If you have to sit in your apartment and debate about whether you consented or not, then I can't call that rape.  It's not worth ruining a man's life over it if you literally can't remember if you consented because the very fact that you had the presence of mind to sit and think about it in those terms proves that it didn't traumatize you to the point of being scared to go out anymore.  
> 
> *It is pretty well-known that women have the power to ruin a man's life with this one claim.*  A little acting and he may go to prison for the rest of his life.  I'm not saying that a lot of women do that, but it can be done, and I can only hope and ask that women don't abuse the power they have in those situations.  In fact, because of this, it is advisable for both men and women to avoid sex while drunk.  Women, if you think it's something you'll regret, don't do it.  Just because you can go out there and "see what happens" doesn't mean you should.  If the idea of non-consensual sex doesn't scare you enough to avoid putting yourself in a situation where it could happen, then it's best to avoid it altogether and not potentially expose yourself to the predicament where a man's life hangs in the balance.
> 
> If you're not sure about what you want, then a college frat party is probably the worst possible place to try to hook up.




Yes. That is definitely true- you have got a valid point there. One claim can shatter an innocent guys reputation for life even if proven innocent. This world is a scary place.

----------


## pessimist

> What do you know about it?
> 
> As long as you know how irrational it sounds.  I'm still curious what makes you think of rape in such terms, though, because I'm assuming that you haven't actually suffered from it before, or else you probably wouldn't be here, talking about it.



lol. no I have never been raped. 

Like I said, I can't explain it. I think I link it to suffering. Also, the very idea of it is HIGHLY disturbing to me. 

My nervous system is way too complicated for me to try to unravel.

----------


## jmdrake

> Wow you got really butt hurt over that ass grabbing comment of mine.


Naw.  I'm just thorough.  You didn't represent the conversation the way that I remembered it so I went back and checked and then posted the results for your edification.   




> You chose to read those posts as a tirade or take offense but like I said no offense was intended. At one point I have a few posts after that where I tried to add a little levity since I figured I may have ruffled a few feathers unintentionally.
> 
> He chose to believe I was saying all cat-calling = sexual assault but I never said that. Regardless that has ZERO to do with the point I was trying to make with him.  I was trying to make the point along the same lines that Johnhowe kept reluctantly coming back to the thread to make with him.


Okay.  Like some animals are more equal than others, some jokes are funnier than others.    Glad to know we all know that cat-calling != sexual assault.  My concern remains that iHollaback's agenda doesn't seem to see things that way.  On their own page they complained about a judge reluctant to convict a man for a "mere indecent request."  And I guess that's the rub.  Your concern seems to be why the rest of us don't take cat-calling as serious.  Our concern is that iHollaback's endgame is for cat-calling to be taken so seriously that a judge dare not, not convict someone over a "mere indecent request."  




> The point I was making was along the lines of that the behavior is sometimes scary to women and how it sometimes leads to sexual assault or women have the fear it may lead to sexual assault. (they never know sometimes which way it is going to go, so no harm done if they want to have a campaign for civility). That really should not be all that hard for you to understand nor is saying that controversial.


FDR was correct saying "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."  I should not be expected to live my life around the fear of someone else that may or may not be justified.  You know the one time that I *know* a woman was afraid of me?  When I was in college three of my friends were walking down from the dorm to the local convenience store.  This was in the 80s and folks still used "boom boxes" and one friend was carrying one and the music was up.  It was in the evening.  All of us were black.  A white woman was at the store talking on a pay phone.  Despite the fact that this was a busy street in an area with little crime, this woman hurried up and got off the phone, ran and jumped in her car and peeled off like bigfoot was trying to get her.  My point?  *Her fear was HER fault!  Not mine!*  Now can I understand her fear?  Sure.  Four college aged black dudes walking down the street playing loud music and throwing their hands up.  In her mind we could have been the Bloods or the Crips.  Should there be some campaign to get young black men to not play music loud enough for someone else to hear and throw their hands up because some white woman might be fearful without any reason?  Sorry, but that's garbage.  So is the idea pushed by the video and adopted by Rothbardian Girl that if a guy says "Smile" that's something to get upset and and somehow "street harassment".  Behavior that is completely innocent *and in some cases the polite thing to do* has been lumped in with "creepy" behavior.  That's just one of the problems with the entire iHollaback movement even if we assume that they aren't trying to pass new laws.  (And I'm certain that they are trying to pass new laws).




> I even have several posts saying I believe cat calling != sexual assault.  However that site includes sexual assault as part of street harassment - cat-calling.  So sexual assault related to cat-calling is fair game in this discussion, quite relevant and should not have been so shocking to you or him that I brought that into the thread like others here did.


And ^that is the problem you seem unable to see!  The stupid iHollaback video and site conflates sexual assault with cat calling.  It gives *no* evidence that a man saying "You look like a thousand dollars" leads to sexual assault.  Really Dannno makes a better case that the criminalization of prostitution leads to rape than the "iHollaback" movement does with regards to cat-calling and sexual assault.  (And FTR I think Danno's touched).  The "cat calling leads to assault" theory is just thrown in there as a "truth" without supporting evidence.  Most of the stuff on the OP video ain't even cat calling!  It is *downright dishonest* of iHollaback to gloss over the *fact* that men telling a woman "good evening" or "smile" should *not* be lumped in with sexual assault or anything leading to sexual assault.




> AHHH, LOL

----------


## jmdrake

> I am not saying it is rational. I said I can't explain it- it is some weird feeling. Death to me is the end. Rape is a life long scar one has to carry. 
> 
> I'm someone that cannot tolerate seeing ANY violence against children or animals or witness any kind suffering of them. My nervous system goes haywire. However, I can watch someone get hacked to death with a machete in a movie with indifference. I have selective empathy and sympathy or something. *shrug* 
> 
> So for me to try to logically explain why I find rape worse (in many cases) to murder- I will be unable to do so.
> 
> EDIT: Poorly worded on my part. Just wanted to say *I am not* pro-murder.


I don't think you're pro murder any more than I think Dannno is pro rape.  Dannno says things that are beyond the pale, but this is what's getting lost in translation.  Sometimes, certainly not all of the time, rape is more about sex than about violence.  Here is proof.  One case I had to study was a case where a young woman had invited a friend who was staying at their house up to her bedroom.  They both got undressed and she invited him into her bed.  They were making out.  He was about to penetrate and she *then* said no.  He only got the tip in, then immediately stopped, put on his clothes and left.  *He was convicted of rape!*  Even the women in my class were uncomfortable with this, but they consoled themselves with "Well she did say no and no means no."  Okay.  Fine.  He committed a crime.  But would any sane person think "This is a violent man that just wants to control women"?  How about that was a manipulative woman that got her jollies on controlling and destroying men?  Or maybe they were two scared teens that really had no clue what they were doing or what they wanted to do and she got cold feet and he was so wound up that it took him a split second too long to put on the brakes?  Really, I would have been okay with that conviction if she had said no and he continued despite her pleas to stop until he ejaculated.  But that's not what happened.  He would have been better off hiring a hooker.

----------


## dannno

> I don't get this either. I find it sad and frightening that people need a freaking moral code not to rape.


Wait a minute here, are you trying to say that if you won $20 million in the lottery you would just give it all away? You mean, you don't want a nicer house, a nicer car, maybe some different clothes, new electronics? There is nothing you would get if you had more money? Why don't you steal those things? Is it because you are afraid you will get caught, or is it because of a moral code? I would think, in your case, it is due to a moral code that you don't think it is right to steal other people's labor. I don't think it is frightening that people need a moral code not to steal, I think the fact that most or at least many people have that moral code is a good thing. I think the fact that most guys don't rape women because of a moral code is a good thing, too. We are biologically driven to want to have sex with attractive women, so what stops us is either fear of getting caught or a moral code. I would be more concerned that people were not committing theft or rape because they were scared of getting caught, the moral code is self imposing and a much better option.





> Huge difference between the two.


There is not a _huge_ difference between stealing a rape, rape is just stealing sex. It IS worse, imo, but with theft you are essentially enslaving somebody and stealing their labor. There are plenty of women willing to trade having sex with a guy they wouldn't normally have sex with for 2 days wages, some girls are only willing to do with for 5 days wages, some 20 days wages and others would not be willing to do it for 100 days wages... but would they do it for 5,000 days wages? Maybe, maybe not.. Some women don't have a price, most will tell you they don't but many of them actually would take it if it were realistically available. A LOT of women have a price on their sexuality that can be valued in the number of days they can forgo working, so in many cases you could actually make a value comparison. Where the difference comes is when somebody works for several years, saves up a good some of money and it is stolen, let's say by a business partner or violently by a thief or by a hacker, I will admit that the psychological difficulty of dealing with that is likely less than the psychological difficulty of dealing with rape, but I don't think they are that much different. Stealing may just be losing your physical possessions, but the effort and labor you went through to gain those physical possessions is also lost and that is where the similarity comes in.







> Well yeah! Duh! I just meant that sex is on the mind before the potential date rapist enters the party or bar or club.


Ya, consensual sex is on their mind- when they don't get that they may turn to rape. It's not like rape is on their mind and suddenly a girl just consents and it comes as a surprise, no, the goal in most cases was consensual sex first and the rape comes out of desperation.





> I have no interest in talking about feminism. I am talking about rape. I don't need a campaign or some feminist to tell me that rape is wrong. I haven't been brainwashed. I just have an emotional, visceral reaction to it for some reason. I find it worse than murder in most cases. I don't know why.


I think murder is worse but I'm not a female who has been raped and some of them agree with you so there must be something to that. But then other women are raped and don't report it because they feel bad for the guy who raped them (maybe it was a friend who they knew was sexually desperate) and maybe they are somewhat mad and want them to be punished in some way but they don't want them to go to prison for several years and get raped themselves. Or maybe they aren't sure whether they consented, or maybe they think they led them on too much and feel bad about that. So there are clearly differences in how women feel about being raped themselves depending on the situation.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't think you're pro murder any more than I think Dannno is pro rape.  Dannno says things that are beyond the pale, but this is what's getting lost in translation.  Sometimes, certainly not all of the time, rape is more about sex than about violence.  Here is proof.  One case I had to study was a case where a young woman had invited a friend who was staying at their house up to her bedroom.  They both got undressed and she invited him into her bed.  They were making out.  He was about to penetrate and she *then* said no.  He only got the tip in, then immediately stopped, put on his clothes and left.  *He was convicted of rape!*  Even the women in my class were uncomfortable with this, but they consoled themselves with "Well she did say no and no means no."  Okay.  Fine.  He committed a crime.  But would any sane person think "This is a violent man that just wants to control women"?  How about that was a manipulative woman that got her jollies on controlling and destroying men?  Or maybe they were two scared teens that really had no clue what they were doing or what they wanted to do and she got cold feet and he was so wound up that it took him a split second too long to put on the brakes?  Really, I would have been okay with that conviction if she had said no and he continued despite her pleas to stop until he ejaculated.  But that's not what happened.  He would have been better off hiring a hooker.


What?  So in this case you studied, you're telling me the woman said no as he was in the process of penetrating, he immediately complied and stopped, the only pause being his reaction time, and he STILL got  convicted of rape with her testifying against him?  Is that really what you're telling me?

----------


## dannno

> What?  So in this case you studied, you're telling me the woman said no as he was in the process of penetrating, he immediately complied and stopped, the only pause being his reaction time, and he STILL got  convicted of rape with her testifying against him?  Is that really what you're telling me?


I suppose she wasn't expecting it, which is entirely naive on her part. If you are making out with a guy in bed and your underwear is off, the guy is going to assume you are probably ok with having sex unless you say otherwise. No feminist thought BS will convince me or many others otherwise.

----------


## jmdrake

> What?  So in this case you studied, you're telling me the woman said no as he was in the process of penetrating, he immediately complied and stopped, the only pause being his reaction time, and he STILL got  convicted of rape with her testifying against him?  Is that really what you're telling me?


It's been a while since I read that case, but I went back and read it.  It's *worse* than what I described.  While the court believed the defendant's testimony that he had been invited to the girls bedroom, they got undressed, they were naked and kissing, he penetrated her three times, and then on the fourth thrust she pushed him off and said stop, and he *immediately* stopped, he was still guilty of rape.

See: https://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/state_v_mts.htm

I remember having a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach when I read this.  And like I said, even the women in the class were uncomfortable with it.  But then some of them settled on "Well no does mean no."

----------


## RJB

Here's video that touches on the subject:

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Good video.  Thanks.  Good short, summary to get the attention of people who don't really make the connection about lice being the real harassers.








> Here's video that touches on the subject:

----------


## TheTexan

> Here's video that touches on the subject:


The top comment on that video makes some good points

"I'm far from a cop-hugger but this is incredibly one sided and foolish. Police protect decent, civilized people from degenerates and savages, and put their lives on the line doing it. Police are a necessary evil, the alternative being much worse. Sure some cops are scumbags but most are just regular guys who are trying to make a living and keep their community safe. What do you think would happen to a pretty, young Jewish girl like you if there were no cops, no laws, no prisons, etc? You would be raped and killed before nightfall. I think that you are very naive and foolish and have been drinking too much lolbertarian koolaid.﻿"

----------


## RJB

> Police are a necessary evil,


I would never consider any evil necessary.

----------


## specsaregood

> The top comment on that video makes some good points


I found her shiny teeth distracting.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> What do you think would happen to a pretty, young Jewish girl like you if there were no cops, no laws, no prisons, etc?



Yeah, and I'm the creepy conspiracy theorist on this forum.  lol

----------


## jmdrake

> The top comment on that video makes some good points
> 
> "I'm far from a cop-hugger but this is incredibly one sided and foolish. Police protect decent, civilized people from degenerates and savages, and put their lives on the line doing it. Police are a necessary evil, the alternative being much worse. Sure some cops are scumbags but most are just regular guys who are trying to make a living and keep their community safe. What do you think would happen to a pretty, young Jewish girl like you if there were no cops, no laws, no prisons, etc? You would be raped and killed before nightfall. I think that you are very naive and foolish and have been drinking too much lolbertarian koolaid.﻿"


Arrest that commenter for vlog harassment.  He's threatening that "pretty, young Jewish girl" with rape.

----------


## JK/SEA

so this thread, and all the comments that followed, is all over a staged video?...

wtf...?

----------


## presence

Meanwhile...









...strap me down and tell me everything will be alright.

----------


## kahless

> The top comment on that video makes some good points
> 
> "I'm far from a cop-hugger but this is incredibly one sided and foolish. Police protect decent, civilized people from degenerates and savages, and put their lives on the line doing it. Police are a necessary evil, the alternative being much worse. Sure some cops are scumbags but most are just regular guys who are trying to make a living and keep their community safe. What do you think would happen to a pretty, young Jewish girl like you if there were no cops, no laws, no prisons, etc? You would be raped and killed before nightfall. I think that you are very naive and foolish and have been drinking too much lolbertarian koolaid.﻿"


If the thugs know there is no form of law enforcement whether private or government, no doubt she would be raped or gang raped while she calls out for the police.

----------


## presence

> If the thugs know there is no form of law enforcement whether private or  government, no doubt she would be raped or gang raped while she calls  out for the police.



that's heavy on so many levels

----------


## jmdrake

> Meanwhile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If Rothbardian Girl is still reading this, ^that is the real "up yours" animated gif.

----------

