(War on Women) NYC: 10 hours of Harassment or Compliments?

[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.

Bullshit, 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).

Bullshit, 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 bullshit 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 bullshit 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..

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".

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/legal/#sthash.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."