The #MeToo revolution has made life dangerous not just for bonafide predators like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey but also for any male who makes an "unwanted" advance. Dating lower-ranking female co-workers is now seen as predatory. Women can revoke consent for an encounter even years after the fact, reframing it as rape. New laws which would criminalize whistling and catcalling are being seriously considered. Millennials already are having less sex than the two generations that preceded them. This makes me wonder if we're headed for a sexual Cold War like there is in Japan, where both genders have lost interest in each other and the birthrate is plummeting. Do you think the same will happen in Western society?
YES, the new Cold War is coming. Get your chocolate and blowup dolls ready!
NO, guys are guys, they will always flirt with (or harass) women no matter what
RESULTS
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
After #MeToo, are we headed for a "sexual Cold War"?
Even good-looking, socially active guys are going mgtow, honestly. There are teen boys going "tgtow," swearing off women and relationships and with it, the wage slavery that used to drive our economy. All the "beta males" of society used to get educations and careers so they could compete in the sexual marketplace too. But now those men are all redpilled and radicalized and they instinctively distrust and disdain women. It's not conducive to a healthy, functioning society when 60% of all the males are deadbeats with no hope and no reason to live.
And it's easy for women to coldly and callously dismiss these men and their complaints, call them worthless losers, laugh at their pain, drink their tears, etc...
Women don't seem to realize that by rejecting 60% of all men as unworthy, it means 60% of their sons will be found unworthy also.
So think of that when you compare the male and female suicide rates, where both rates are steadily climbing, but men are still killing themselves five times more. Every single one of those men was some mother's happy, bouncing baby boy. And she loved him with all her heart and wanted nothing but the best and would have sacrificed anything for him to be happy and find love.
That has occurred to me too. There are soo many unkind behaviours besides harassment against women. Why is a wolf whistle -- which is a crude way of saying "I'm attracted to you" -- considered so much worse than giving someone the finger or telling them "Go to hell"?
If people would just waited for marriage to have sex and experience sexual acts we wouldn't even be in this mess. That includes the porn. Japan is heavily porn addicted. That's why many are afriad to get married, let alone have sex. It's not just about it being a country where it follows a lot of traditions that no longer fit the modern world. A lot of men don't want to wait for marriage anymore besides marry. What do they expect women to do? Continue to whore without speaking up about the pain and suffering that comes with it? I don't even agree with the whole thing knowing darn well they ALL sold their souls to the devil to get it. But we also cannot neglect the fact that a lot of abuse besides consent is being don't in those industries. Many did not ASK to be in those positions. But if you want it that badly or your parents forced you so young into those industries, that is what happens. It's part front, part santuary for these women and men. Because usually if they don't allow you to get away with telling the truth and exposing the industry, they'll kill you and make it look like an 'accident' or 'natural causes'.
I agree with some of that. Porn can destroy a man. I wish I had more warning than it can be an addiction. Supposedly it's linked with higher rates of depression. Japan's male youth is rejecting the long hour work days their fathers considered honorable after WW2. So a weird void was created and replaced with a culture of mainstreaming the prostitution/objectification of women. I don't think people want to believe sluts can unravel the fabric of a modern society.
@love_conquers_lust It's not just an addiction, it is abuse to your body and self. And in the end you pay for it. And hurt those you claim you love. I know this for a fact. I've lived through the hurt.
You got to stop looking at it as religion this is something that God had created for us to have in our life. Religion is man-made and religion doesn't care about God they care about themselves. This is why there's a lot of people who claiming themselves to be religious, or even Christians who are not virgins before they are married or they don't believe in Waiting either. Yes it is spiritual adultery but it is far more than that. You are bound illegally in a spiritual marriage with every sex partner you have with them and what they have with others. When you look at the STD exposure chart you can pretty much count all of that as your marital Partners in any legal matter both male and female through the sex act. And hence why is also scientifically proven why women will obtain the DNA of the men that she sleep with. It's not a joke but people still do it because they believe is all about religion.
"And hence why is also scientifically proven why women will obtain the DNA of the men that she sleep with." That's telegony, a form of microchimerism. It's been proven in fruit flies, not humans. Humans females will share DNA with their fetuses. Evidence now says it requires impregnation. There were some females who still had male DNA without recorded previous pregnancies but this wasn't confirmed to be specifically from previous partners semen. It could have been from abortions, miscarriages, or a twin sibling. It's still conjecture.
That's a very interesting way of looking at marriage. By spiritual adultery I meant in the metaphysical in matters of the soul, not like a spiritual marriage sanctioned by the church. But still, I had the same view in fornicating with the town whore was like sleeping with everybody in town.
My religion to me is people trying to articulate their own personal beliefs with a higher power. Some of them I agree with, some I don't, and some are irrelevant.
Spiritual marriage is both that that is done in the spirit as well as in the flesh. The problem is, you don't have to get pregnant ONLY because DNA is influenced by spiritual matters too. Anything can change and shift. I know because I have witnessed and felt spiritual change at some point in my life. So what I am talking about is very much real. Legally, we're supposed to be married before having sex. Those who don't and never waited, are now bound to those they slept with till death does them apart. And it will and is destroying their marriages and sex lives in the bedroom. Until people wake up, which plenty won't, this mess is going to get worse, continue to happen until they make it legal. We're not heading to a cold war exactly. We're heading into a world of darkness and any and all immoral and filthy thing imaginable will be law. No longer democracy.
"you don't have to get pregnant ONLY because DNA is influenced by spiritual matters too." I don't really agree with that. Are you attributing things like DNA mutations as acts of God? It's possible, but it doesn't excuse us from further investigation using all other tools at our disposal.
"We're heading into a world of darkness and any and all immoral and filthy thing imaginable will be law. No longer democracy." I suppose. While fornication is a sin in a number of textbooks, have you considered from a secular viewpoint that it's a natural progression of females simply because there is too much to consume? Sometimes I get the feeling this rise in sexual liberation is just a natural way of keeping societies in check.
God never called for us to do any of this. God is allowing this to happen because people don't want to change, to turn him and repent. He made the rules, he created us, and he set the standards for us to follow. We didn't want to do that, now we're reaping what we sowed. And now innocent people are caught in the middle of it.
"but it doesn't excuse us from further investigation using all other tools at our disposal." First of all, we're not supposed to be doing anything but either follow his rules or suffer. "have you considered from a secular viewpoint that it's a natural progression of females simply because there is too much to consume?" There is nothing to consider because God again made us. He knows how we operate, therefore no matter what man say, he is right. If everything was so right people wouldn't be hurt or dying. And my late mother is a testament to that after dying from cervical cancer. And I hope you know where cervical cancer comes from 90% of the time.
Humanitarism is not of God. He calls us to live in the spirit. Not the flesh for the flesh wrestles with the spirit. Sin nature entered in the moment we were conceived and born because of what our progenitors have done. Our bodies are cursed to die now. This life is temporary. Our body is just a shell and vessel, but we still have to take care of it.
If someone is going to drop out of the dating pool because of someone elses actions, then so be it. I can't force them to date or want to continue on with the opposite sex, or the same sex for that matter, for any reason if they don't want to... and so be it. People act like there is something that can be done to change this situation.
Is there an implication that we go back to a world where harassment is okay and ignored so the majority of men who weren't doing the harassing somehow feel freer to flirt? That's no better than the world in which some innocent men are caught up in situations where there are these crazy women who are out for revenge or whatever that are ruining it for women who really are seeking real help or a safe place to work or just live their lives without being harassed/raped/whatever without notice or care.
People want to have sex. They want relationships. They want to date. They want one night stands. They want to get married. I don't think the buck stops here.
@love_conquers_lust I said "they" as in people in general... some want marriage, some want one night stands, etc. The people who want those things will have them come hell or high water. Those that care not to participate in any type of relations, they won't by default.
Actually your second paragraph rings profoundly true. It's just as frustrating for traditional males as it is for new age females to somehow be gender blind at the workplace/in public and then take off your blinders in search of a partner. The no physical contact thing without consent is fine but if it's hard enough enforcing that kind of societal shift on locals, let alone integrating foreigners with antiquated values far behind those of developed nations. Then there's the obscene remark part of it which basically forces you to curb your language. In the workplace, that's legal. In public...
I pretty much agree with your take. Millennials are humping like rabbits. I'm a little confused by you saying they're having less sex. They're having tons of sex. Irresponsible sex as well. What is getting less is the marriage rate and relationships which I blame feminists. People are less likely to have babies when not married or in serious committed relationships. Also at least 125,000 abortions per day. Abortions are going up yearly. That is a cause for low birthrates as well.
Huh, thats interesting. It's a bit hard to believe going by what I see and hear from teens and early 20s. But I won't argue with a study I can't prove wrong. lol
Rape used to be simply defined. It needs to be simply defined. If you accuse someone of rape, you need to have evidence that back up your claims. Same goes with harassment and sexual assault. These crimes or even just the accusations can destroy a person's career whether they are true or not. And if they are false, the false accusor needs to be harshly punished to hopefully deter future individuals from false accusations. If they are true, prosecute the perpetrator according to the law.
Here is an excerpt from the Sexual Offenses Act of 1956 in the UK.
1) For the purposes of section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (which relates to rape) a man commits rape if—
(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and (b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she consents to it;
See how clear and concise that was?
How about this? Before you engage in sexual conduct, you sign a contract on your phone's etc that is on an app or something that gets updated every hour with a ding notification reminder to check in. It creates a record for your protection. This should not be needed but with the way things are going... It seems to be that way. I'm leaning towards the arranged marriage side of things personally.
@CubsterShura There are cameras, DNA, witnesses, self defensive wounds, tests to see if the woman was drugged, etc. It is hard to prosecute, but if you want to avoid nonsense like the Salem witch trials, we need to follow the evidence, and not just take the accusers word.
Rape kits ARE available at every police station and medical clinic. If you enter a medical clinic or police station and state that you were raped (and you have not bathed yet) they can use a rape kit on you and will collect the evidence (DNA, semen samples etc) and use it to arrest and prosecute the rapist.
This is a mistake, true. But victims feel disgusted by the seven and try to get rid of all of it to remain pure. Heck, I myself feel like showering when I remember the time I faced child abused. Wasn't even raped.
It's already begun in Japan: The Japanese Herbivore Men.
In America it's called MGTOW.
In Britain they call them man deserts.
The sexual cold war is already here, #metoo is just the final nail in the entitled coffin. These women built their careers from backroom blowjobs, essentially sleeping their way into positions of power and now, years after the fact, once they already have their empires built, now they come out and say they didn't like it?
People knew about this and just watched it happen, worse were active participants.
If there is any lesson in #Metoo it's that justice and due cause doesn't matter if you were born with a penis, regardless if he's one of these sick fucks that use their position to manipulate new hires into sexual encounters or not. The assumption now is all men are rapists and there is no legal protection for men against a woman who at any point in time can change her mind if it's rape or not.
Women expect men to approach but with this kind of shit going on most men are going to think twice or worse... not even bother.
Women are getting more dangerous to be around, to the point men are avoiding them. Men that have something to lose, are even less likely to interact with women. Meanwhile sex dolls and VR porn are getting better. At this point women have very little to offer a man, and can destroy him so easily that I don't think the relationships between men and women can be saved. It would take generations to repair the damage, and with things like VR porn, men simply won't have a reason to take a risk on a female partner again.
We now have decades of feminism waging a war on men, and it is getting so dangerous even politicians refuse to interact with women now. Either people will have to stand up to these feminists and destroy their reputations and careers, or these politicians as well as successful men being targeted, are going to move to strip all women of their rights so these men can save themselves, and there will be nothing women can do about it.
Metoo is a massive over reach that will end up costing women dearly. It is like during the Salem witch trials, how they women got away with accusing innocent people of witchcraft, until they started accusing the people in charge. Then suddenly they stopped listening to anything the women had to say.
As it stands, the best women can hope for, is that men and women self segregate. At worst men take women's rights away. We can see examples of both happening in history. Self segregation generally comes before the collapse of that society. The only way I see for things to get better between the sexes, is for feminism to completely collapse, which seems unlikely.
@heavensgift2girls the rate of false accusations is less than 3% as documented by the justice department. NIH did a ten year study and found that in ten years the rate of false accusations was 5.9% so they grant that the rate of false accusations is between 2-10%. so this indicates that the rate of false accusations is FAR smaller than the rate of true accusations
did you see what i said in my first line? "no. guys do the right thing. girls don't make false claims"
There are all sorts of ways to twist statistics. If you are talking about the women that make it all the way to court, those do not represent the full number of women lying about being raped. Before that number is created, they first have to sift through a lot of lying women, before prosecution can even begin.
Some studies have shown upwards to 40% of women claiming to be raped that never make it to trial because they discover the women are lying. There are plenty more women that accuse men of rape that are lying that never even file a police report. Instead they simply destroy his reputation with her lies, for the purpose of destroying the mans reputation. The justice department does not report on those numbers.
Metoo, is about ruining a man through what is basically mob rule, without evidence. This means it is designed to cater to lying women that know that their claims would crumble under a police investigation. This allows women to destroy the careers, and personal life of innocent men, without having to risk raising the stats on the numbers of false rape accusations that the justice department would end up reporting on. Metoo is all about avoiding the justice system, and creating a modern day witch hunt.
@heavensgift2girls if it's about ruining men how come more than 80% of the Metoo people don't even specifically mention an attacker? please explain that? how do you ruin a man by saying "i was a victim of sexual abuse"?
The definition of "sexual abuse" keeps getting broader. Before, it meant rape. Now it can mean someone tried to steal a kiss or brushed up against you on the subway. This has the effect of inflating rape statistics, until we get the wild claim that 1 in 4 girls are raped on campus. Which would make American college campuses more dangerous than the Congo. You don't think lies like this are damaging to men?
this is such an absurd comment. more dangerous than the congo? convicted for sexual abuse for brushing up against someone in a subway? i'm sorry this is alarmist speak not rooted in rational thought or even reality. as such it makes it hard to even respond to addressing it on a point by point level
men get married every day. men meet and get into relationships every day. in fact the rate of happy relationships has been on a steady rise for several years. so you can play the victim and assume a victims role but the simple fact is people behaving appropriately are not usually under fire. people who behave appropriately and end up being falsely convicted is about 5in100 (that's being rather generous). those are the facts. so you can opt for facts of the victim mentality. your choice
so there are fewer instances of rapes occurring than we were previously informed of on college campuses. that's good. i don't see how that makes america more dangerous than the congo. or that the world is full of false accusers. it isn't and there aren't. simple as that
Maybe slow down when you read stuff. I didn't say America was more dangerous than the Congo. I said people are over-inflating the statistics by broadening the definition of sexual assault, making it SEEM more dangerous than the Congo (a comparison I borrowed from Christina Hoff Sommers). And who's the accused perpetrator of this mostly imagined rape epidemic? Men.
If male sex crimes are being exaggerated tenfold, of course that will create tension and ill will between the genders. Plus, society believes as you do, that "girls don't make false claims," period. That puts a presumption of guilt on any man accused by a woman. If you think only the guilty get accused and convicted, you haven't read enough history.
"if it's about ruining men how come more than 80% of the Metoo people don't even specifically mention an attacker?" That is just typical feminist propaganda, to make women see men as the enemy. Feminists get caught making up false statistics all the time to make the problems of sexual assault seem worse than they are, to justify their war on men. In some cases feminists in power, have even had the police withhold evidence to get innocent men put in jail, for the sole purpose of getting the number of rapes to look higher than it is to further their own anti-male agenda.
There is an entire industry based around the courts destroying men on the behalf of women now. Women are not pure angels that do no wrong. They have been being taught to hate and mistrust men since childhood, to the point that feminism echos Nazi beliefs, only against men instead of Jews. Many feminists have talked about limiting the number of men allowed to be born if not outright killed.
Thinking women can't be as evil as any men, shows just how much of their feminist propaganda has already effected you. Any group can be taught to hate as much as any other group. Women are no exception to that rule.
where did i say women can't be as evil as men? please show me where i said that
the court system is designed by men in a male dominated government. if you have a problem with the court system you have a problem with the patriarchal society that says women are weaker and better caretakers of children and thus divorce goes the way it does
"if it's about ruining men how come more than 80% of the Metoo people don't even specifically mention an attacker?" That is just typical feminist propaganda, to make women see men as the enemy. - how is it propaganda that most #metoo complaints don't mention the name of a predator? how is that propaganda?
"Many feminists have talked about limiting the number of men allowed to be born if not outright killed." - what is your point exactly? and the male government in china did effectively the same? again what is your point?
i'm sorry but your arguments are scattered, irrelevant to points i've made, and just show a general lack of understanding
Are you kidding? 3% isn't enough to freak you out? That's a pretty high number when you really think about it. Unbelievable how women can't just tell the god damn truth. Just because they think you're unattractive they think it means they should just go ahead and ruin your life just for fun. No fricken shit the rate of true accusations is way higher!!! Jesus man. Think for a second will ya? No wonder there's a fairly significant movement of guys that are going monk
@NewEnglandDude "3% isn't enough to freak you out?" seriously. i can give you far greater odds of worse things happening to you that you do every day
"Unbelievable how women can't just tell the god damn truth." seems like a statement that applies to all people not just women.
if guys want to go monk that's on them. more women for less cowardly guys who know the difference between flirtations and sexual advances. i'm sorry but the irrational fear some people have is just a little said, laughable, and pathetic in my opinion. i don't see too many guys losing their livihood because they approached a woman and asked if she wanted to go on a date. i've talked to girls now for 20+ years and never approached any situation that was close to an issue of sexual harassment, abuse, etc.
use proper judgment and if you are a victim of the 3% then sorry the odds got you... especially keeping in mind 3% includes the entire population. half of hte population is under 18. so reduce the rate to 1.5%. about 1/3 is over 65. so you can reduce it to about.5%. half the population is male so now you're at.25%.
Yes and no. A lot of guys are legitimately dropping out of dating because of all this stuff (my brother for example, who is successful in all other areas of life) but then that leaves narcissists and other guys that don't care about being accused of being perverted and stuff. And they are getting more sex than ever. But they aren't ever committing.
So not so much a cold war but more so a man drought - because there is a legit shortage of men that are marriageable.
Flirting is not harassment. The #MeToo movement is more harmful than it is good. We should be focusing on the individual circumstances and not accusing men for bullshit things. It de-legitimizes the movement. Like the boy cried wolf.
This isn't good for women or men. Either every woman is lying or they are all true. These are the only sides we see nowadays. Neither is true.
@CubsterShura It doesn't mean anything without proof. You have to look at each one, and examine the evidence. It doesn't matter how many are telling the truth or not. We need evidence for each individual case.
Some of these women have waited over a decade in some cases, and provide no evidence, nor even want a police investigation in many places. It is little more than a witch hunt to destroy careers with no evidence at this point. Even if most of these women were telling the truth, the way they are handling it is sickening, and needs to stop. The police need to do a real investigation and handle things based on evidence and proof, instead of turning it into a witch hunt.
@heavensgift2girls the problem is, there is hardly any evidence. Most women after such incidents shower for a long time, it washes off any remaining evidence. A footage would be great but isn't available everywhere.
@CubsterShura What you are saying is nothing more than a plea to emotion, and is not a good reason to believe someone accusing another person of a crime. The burden of proof must on the accuser in all cases. The alternative is to let any woman destroy any guy she wants. If men were destroying women, with no evidence you wouldn't stand for it, and you know it. You know what else? I wouldn't stand for letting men destroy women with no evidence either. In order for anyone accusing another to be believed, proof needs to be offered. Sexual assault cases are no different in that regard.
But if you didn't understand what I mean by that question it automatically confirms you know nothing and are talking trash. One more possibility is that you live under layers of rock sediments.
@CubsterShura if some woman kills her baby, is it right to call all women killers? Then its not right to subject all men to #metoo for what Winstien or similar people did. Each case is separate and individual. If they are found guilty, I would say torture and kill them but leave innocent men out of it.
Nope. Japan's history goes back to the 60s I think where there were arranged marriages. There may be more laws and some women may unjustly accuse men of rape but there will also be women who are caught out for lying and many/most women not accusing men. I don't think women will unjustly accuse men decades ahead unless there is a good reason like their own mental illness or that they were genuinely molested.
Nobody hardly talks face to face as it is anyway. Everyone just texts anyway. That face to face conversation skill is quickly dying. Now you add in that men are demonized for being men and simply talking to women to the point men aren't sure anymore what is acceptable. I think you are right.
Problem is what you define as "sexual assault". I've heard women saying that holding door is a micro-agression. Others saying that looking at them is harassement. This is the issue I have with the metoo movement, it seems that, alongside with real assault, there are quite a good number of women throwing nonsense there and calling assault almost anything coming from a man.
That's a weird question. Some women are some women. Are you expecting me to remember the names, if I ever knew it, of ever hysterical misandrist I've heard? And how about the rest of my comment? What do you define as "sexual assault"?
You can look it up, but that's no use, since the legal definition of sexual assault doesn't matter for those who used that movement to spread hate toward men. When someone explain you that talking to her is considered harassement, you can definitly consider that she doesn't give a damn about the definition. And won't care if law says you did nothing wrong. Social medias are a powerful weapon, enough to destroy someone's life with nothing more than a few lines on twitter.
Well they would probably have more arguments than you in that whole conversation. Because you didn't even try to answer my first question. And since then, you've evading, calling names... That's the level 0 of argumentation.
James Franco didn't assault women either but is now being called out just for general creepiness. I think if you're going to publicly shame someone and destroy their career, the bar needs to be a lot higher than that. Everyone is guilty of something. Rose McGowan, the face of #MeToo, is herself a homewrecker who broke up her director's marriage. Luckily for her and others like her, the mob is focused solely on sexual harassment/assault right now, leaving her free to throw stones from her glass house.
This is what the sicko Marxists want to achieve, to stop any interaction between men and women. That won't happen. There always will be a place for flirting, dating and such. At least where I live. If other culture want to screw themselves, feel free to do so, but flirting isn't sexual harassment as some sicko feminist claims.
current social politics is certainly hostile to any kind of interaction with the opposite sex. and while i continue the same as i always have, i am seeing more and more kneejerk reactions from people about shit that honestly isn't as big a problem as it is made out to be.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
Yes it is. Just work from home and have all your food delivered to your door so you don't have to go outside. See what women think when there are no men anywhere in sight. Sex robots are becoming a hit. Significantly better investment than a woman. And 100% safe too. Every man go MGTOW! Keep growing the manosphere. Women ain't worth a penny these days. Just a group of misandrists. No need to waste your time and money on them. MGTOW!
With the rate the West is going you'll have to have recorded evidence of consent happening or going to a solicitor to have it signed in writing that you consented to sex on the 11th January 2017 2:45am
But that can also be construed as proof of rape if the woman claims that she was forced to sign "under duress". In other words, if she was offered any incentives or perceived any threat whatsoever. Which she can claim that she did solely on the grounds of you being male, and therefore inherently threatening.
Yes, this is happening in the U. S. If women think that shaming tactics and random hate mongering is going to make any difference they're out of their minds. As the courts and law becomes more and more hateful to men it's only a matter of time before the only ones left are the rapists and molesters. I guess that's what western women want.
Regardless, I'm not going to be a victim of this. I've already experienced the worst feminism has to offer personally, and I'm still alive and free. I'm still going to go out of my way to meet and flirt with women I find attractive. Even if I feel awkward, even if she's a raging cunt. I'm not going to let it stop me any more.
Fuck feminism, and fuck this #metoo campaign. I'm not going to feel disempowered by campaigns that seek to make me a villain for my gender anymore.
The world is heading in the way where feelings are more important than the truth and besides many of those "raped"(those who yell raappee even if a guy looked her in the eyes or touched her or anything else but didn't do anything wrong) female are misusing the words Rape Harrasment just to gain something even if it would destroy the other person life
Aww disliked even if not saying anything wrong, some people really only want to listen to one version of the facts like fanatics... Anyway the news about Japan aren't true, they are magnified like most news but gullible people fall for it 🙄
It's already seen as sexual harassment when a guy just pats a girl on their shoulder. Or even just looks at them.
7
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
i just can't stand feminists. luckily, this bullshit is not as prevalent as mainstream media would have you believe. most women are not like this. most men are not like this. buzzed and other ultra liberal and feminist places like jezebel have done more harm than good to society. makes me ashamed to have left leaning views because i always get grouped in with these cucks. now i know how a not racist republican feels
"Cold war"? I don't see it as a bad thing. You just learn to respect people, and you won't have any problems. I have rarely seen instances of people "revoking consent years later". You just communicate and consent if unsure, and all's well.
I don't mind that the people who don't understand the difference between flirting and harassment are dropping out of the dating pool. Good riddance. Nobody wanted y'all anyways.
Firstly, there’s no nice neat perfect little line to comfortably navigate around, it treacherous ground. So they stay away from it in the first place, but then there’s more going on that makes them want to leave. Besides, it’s the ones who do harass and don’t give a shit about any lines that would stay.
@AllThatSweetJazz I think it's pretty straightforward. If your partner says no or stop, you stop. If your partner seems passive and not into it, fidgety, avoiding eye contact, not initiating anything on their own, you stop. Also while you're having sex, you could ask them if they're ok, if it feels good, etc etc. Especially if you don't know them very well and how they prefer things. A lot of the ones who harass do it because they know they'll get away with it. But that's changing now. There are consequences.
So in fear of doing anything wrong they stop, they stop a lot, way before they come to any line, they opt out altogether. I wasn’t even referring to sex this whole time, but in regard to sex you can revoke consent *after* the act, years later. So you can do everything right and still get burned. Seems reasonable that they would opt out.
There’s been consequences for a long time. This additional tactic of social media shaming is wrong.
@AllThatSweetJazz what is a line to you? A line to me is when the other partner clearly doesn't seem to be enjoying themselves and is acting very passive/as if they don't want to do anything. Consent cannot be revoked. If someone is coming out years later and explaining that they never enjoyed themselves, then that's how it is. So in the instance with Aziz, just because the accused *thought* that the accuser was enjoying themselves, it doesn't automatically mean that consent was given. She never said yes.
@AllThatSweetJazz being passive I think is a line that applies to anything, whether we're talking about harassment or sex. If the other person clearly doesn't want to engage with you in any way, it's obvious that your advances are unwanted and that you should stop.
"what is a line" A line is a hard limit, certain and unmoving, the point where acceptable traverses into unacceptable. This; "doesn't seem to be enjoying themselves and is acting very passive/as if they don't want to do anything" is subjective and arbitrary.
"Consent cannot be revoked" Yet that's what people are trying to do besides the legitimate cases of people coming out saying they didn't enjoy themselves. But it doesn't matter if they didn't enjoy themselves, it matters if they consented to whatever they did. She never said no either and continually went along with everything. Having a bad time means you just had a bad time, it's not about consent.
"clearly doesn't want to engage with you in any way, it's obvious that your advances are unwanted" 'Clearly' is not clear. Again it's arbitrary and subjective. What's not subjective is leaving. If you "clearly" didn't want to do anything and then you chose to do it anyway then that really undermines "clearly."
@AllThatSweetJazz yeah dude, you're right about all of that. It's basically like walking through a mine field with your fingers crossed for the entirety of your life. Why put yourself through that?
@NewEnglandDude it’s a mine field if you don’t understand what constitutes as harassment, in which case you’re doing everyone a favor by dropping out. Byebye
@AllThatSweetJazz continuously saying inappropriate things to someone who either tells you to stop or isn’t engaging in the conversation at all. Also touching a person without their consent.
Then there’s what constitutes inappropriate and also what’s not engaging in the conversation, just because I don’t say anything doesn’t mean I don’t want you to stop talking.
All that assuming people even accept that definition. Some people treat greeting a woman in the street is harassment — and by that definition aziz ansari did nothing wrong yet people are mad like a crime occurred.
She didn’t say stop and obliged when he wanted to proceed. He didn’t meet your definition of harassment, yet his career is fucked. This is the kind of thing guys opt out because of.
Not to mention women who will call even less harassment or just flat out lie. These are the perils that men are seeing: Do everything the way it’s supposed to be done, still get accused of something and ruined.
@AllThatSweetJazz except she said several times that she wanted to take it easy and he said ok, but then a minute later was back at it again. She also kept moving away from him and moved her hand away several times. Sorry but if you don’t see how being pushy like that is problematic, I’m happy you’ll be dropping out of the dating game.
He if he waited a minute then who's to say that's not taking it easy? She continued willingly after all. At most he was pushy, I see it as douchey, but you're not being forced to do anything. If a guy asks for head and you willing engage in that activity then there's no harassment.
So is it harassment... or are you going with "problematic" now?
sexual cold war would be coming if there weren't always fuckbois lookin to get laid at any price. Smart guys have already dropped out... and are dropping out by the numbers as we speak.
TheYoungTurks is a garbage Liberal show. The people they're criticizing (Millennials) are supposedly who they speak for. Take the statistics with a grain of salt and I would disregard their advice/opinions.
Wrong. It CAN be when it isn't wanted. I dont agree with flirting therefore I don't want it done to me. Flirting is done for sexual intrest and attention. It is NOT nor was it meant to be friendly.
The fact that you put flirting and harassement at the same level is saying a lot about your state of mind, and worrying because you can't differenciate them.
The problem is that the law is so vague that pretty much any flirting can be counted as harassment. It pretty much just depends on the feelings of the person you are talking to, and not actually what you do. Casually touching someone is a part of flirting, and touching any part of the body, can be a form of harassment. Complimenting someone is a part of flirting, and can be a form of harassment. There is no clear line, despite what you are trying to suggest.
Well, I mean, can't be much of a bad thing unless we actually become Japan and start making shitty trends out of buying "waifu pillows" and jacking off to drawn porn.
It’s not right but 99/100 it doesn’t do phiical harm the type of people who cat call are loners who don’t have enough sex and are sad so they shouldn’t be given as much attention as they are
True. I would support Condeliza Rice or Sarah Palin or a democrat woman willing to talk for BOTH men and women. Just not Clinton. Clinton started the war to win the election.
and you were given those rights IMMEDIATELY compared to Civil Rights for African-Americans. You didn't even have a Martin Luthor King Jr. you only had equals of Elijah Muhammad and the old version of Malcolm X (before he became El Hajj Shahbaz) in extremist feminist groups like SCUM and now with Anita Sarkasian, Paul Fieg, Clinton and co. The people you had comparable to MLK were shunned from mainstream feminism like Erin Piezzy and Christina Hoff Sommers.
Also PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE watch this. I am a Muslim and this "right winger" is actually right and EXTREMELY insightful about Islamic law about men's financial duties vs women's. And this same law existed in Europe before it did in Afghanistan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eqYEVYZgdo
The 19th says women can't be DENIED the right to vote, not that they got the right to vote. Which actually makes my point even more clear, women were never explicitly barred from voting. If a woman was the head of a household, and the state/federal government didn't explicitly stop her, she could vote legally BEFORE the 19th amendment. It makes my point that it was one vote PER FAMILY not PER MAN. And compare that "struggle" to that faced by African Americans. The western US already wanted to do it, the other half kind of warmed up to it and done. No feminist went to jail (Susan B Anthony even demanded to go), no police brutality, nothing compared to the Civil Rights movement.
Did not know that, and I do apologize. I only knew about Susan B Anthony. Still you should watch the video I linked. If for no other reason, watch it for the novelty. She accuses Islam of being too feminist.
@shephardjhon indeed, Islam is not as anti women as western propaganda wants us to believe (I'm atheist but I have read the Quran, researched some ehadiith and I read also the Tenakhe and the Bible.)
As I said I am a Muslim and a religious one. One of the right-wingers' most favorite technique is to dismiss Islam and feminism in the same words saying Islam is very anti woman, they also love to mix religion and culture. She does something VERY different. She correctly states that in Islam, women do have obligation to share their income with their family while men are and discusses the situation in Afghanistan saying if women are given a portion of the few jobs that actually are available there, that means taking food away from several other women and children whose husbands and fathers didn't get those jobs. She also mentions the vote. She says that, as payment for the vote men were expected to put their lives on the line in both civil and military service that women never had to do. About China, she says men are legally punished for not taking care of their parents, women aren't so why would Chinese parents want female children.
about divorce and custody, she mentions that men were granted automatic custody because they always had the obligation to feed their children. Now, under feminist pressure, women are granted automatic custody but without the obligation. About alimony, she mentions a move by California to end lifetime alimony only being challenged when women found themselves on the paying end. Her argument is feminists want all the rights but none of the responsibilities AND they hinder men from fulfilling their responsibilities that society legally and culturally does not absolve men of.
This wouldn't have happened had they listened to the Christian Church to begin with. Your rationale has failed you. You've got it backwards. Try reading and understanding the Bible, then criticizing it. It is not an easy read
@love_conquers_lust I know. I actually made a mytake about how premaritial sex isn't a sexual sin and delved into the Greek and what Paul said and the lists of sexual sins in the OT... it was glorious.
I wasn't clear. I'm so accustomed to seeing attacks on religion I knee jerk myself. Fornication is a sin in both books.
What I was implying was they're not reveling in people so steeped in sin that they become jaded and no longer want to commit sin. The Jews set up those strict rules in the old testament to increase birth rates and decrease infant mortality rates.
@love_conquers_lust fornication is indeed a sin. Fornication is what the English translated the greek "porneia" meaning sexual sin, illicit sex. Paul uses it multiple times to refer different sexual sins. No where in the bible does it say unmarried sex between two singles is a sin.
See it' like saying felonies are bad... Felonies are bad. You also need to know what counts as a felony. Porneia, illicit sex, is bad. The Bible does spell out what are sexual sins in a lot of detail.
"No where in the bible does it say unmarried sex between two singles is a sin." Yes it does, by using the word fornication. You're playing with semantics. I believe in historic Greece, porneia originally referred to "prostitution" and grew into a pejorative term, which I imagine obscured and expanded it's meaning in colloquial use. The term was translated in English versions of the Bible to fornication to mean pre-marital intercourse. I think that meaning is older than the KJV bible. It also depends on what version you read from swapping sexual immorality/fornication/immorality/sexual sins/lewdness/whoredom. You could play with the semantics of prostitution where the whore took their own gratification as payment which is no different than fornication, freebie would be the term.
You are correct in the Bible spelling out sexual sins, in both books. I skimmed your Take, you were pretty antagonistic.
If you don't want to buy that, there was a verse where Jesus said that it is better to be a celibate virgin serving God than married and engaging in intercourse. Neither is explicitly wrong, it's just the husband and wife becoming one flesh treating their own bodies as temples satisfying secular desires put extra hurdles between them and their covenant with God. It was stressed that it was right to find secular satisfaction in marriage than burn with passion outside of it being tempted with sexual immorality.
@love_conquers_lust you could play with semantics and say it falls under prostitution, true. But either the Bible means what it says or it doesn't. Either it means prostitutes when it says prostitutes or God didn't know how to write. And if the Bible doesn't actually means what it says there, what else did it get wrong?
If God meant for unmarried sex to be a sin, why did he forget to list it in the detailed lists of sexual sins in the OT? He remembered bestiality, homosexuality, period sex... And just happened to forget unmarried sex between two singles?
@love_conquers_lust my point is, it's either a sin or it isn't. 1. The Scripture says the Law was perfect and pure. If God forgot to include an obvious sexual sin, then God isn't too bright and the Scripture is a lie. 2. Why would God omit a sin then mention it so many hundreds of years later in the NT? 3. Fornication also came from an English word for sex with prostitutes. But we know sex with prostitutes is not the only sexual sin the bible uses the word for. Hence Fornication/Porneia/sexual immorality are all interchangable in the different translations.
1. I don't know about perfect. If it were the case, then the New Testament wouldn't have made a new covenant. You kind of refuted this "perfection" with your second point.
It's a flawed survival manual written by flawed men being commanded by a supreme being. My guess is the Old Testament was too harsh on it's own people so the New Testament gave them relief. I have my own hangups with polygamy. But fornication is one that can be abided by in my book. I don't think it's a big of deal as people make. Consuming partners like we consume everything else makes the consumers feel disposable.
Or just common sense over ideology. If all you can answer to people who disagree is "oh you're a hater, you're such a hater!" then what you're saying has no value.
The #MeToo movement is allowing women to speak up for what they couldn't even imagine to talk about in the past. The trauma of sexual harassment is real. It is giving women the courage, and exposing a lot of unknown truths, showing that the least expected people can do the worst stuff, and it is more common than what we believe.
You guys are bitching about a few women taking the bad advantage of a good initiative. It is you people that make no sense.
This was the idea at the beginning. Idea I agreed with. Exposing rapists and harassers? I'm all in.
Except it didn't stop here. Soon that movement changed and just pointed a finger toward all men, arguing that all men were naturally rapists and harassers. And that, I can't agree with. Not only it pointed at men, but never even mentionned women who could do this too. So yeah, i'm "bitching", because I don't like being considered as a fucking degenerated rapist only because i'm a guy. You seem to have a problem with men not accepting to be all labelled as sexual predator.
@Guanfei no. I never say all men are sexual predators or whatever. No I'm not.
The problem with you guys is that, you guys take yourselves way too seriously. Don't. A cold war, really? Ok listen, you wouldn't even have sex with a woman with such mindset, would you? You will eventually be with women that do not hate you irrationally. So why even worry? You guys love to make big deals out of all. Please don't complicate things like that.
Ok, let's say I come to you, one day, and out of the blue, I tell you you're a murderer. No proof, I don't even know you, but I say you're a murderer. Not only I say that, but I also publicly say it everywhere I can, as if it was the truth. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be very happy with it. That said, I'm not the asker, so that "cold war" thing is not mine. I'm just stating that things are going way too far. And that's a problem. Because soon, with that kind of speech, no men will even dare to approach a woman without fearing to be labeled as a harasser or a rapist. I don't want to live in a world where you have to sign an agreement to simply flirt with a girl. And considering what I've heard during that campaign, I'm not exaggerating much.
@Guanfei If I was in your place, I wouldn't care. I am already an unpopular student in school with various bad rumors about me. Out of all boys that make fun of me and spread lies, there is only one boy who refused to believe in them and he's my really good friend. I honestly believe it doesn't matter what the world thinks of you as long as you have a few good friends or even a loving spouse. People that tell you hurtful stuff, don't let them affect you. Who are they?
The world is a cruel place. People have forever taken advantage of their privilege unfairly.
And how does simply opening a discussion on something qualify as "hate"? Are we back in the dark ages when people were thrown into prison for questioning the church or the monarchy? To quote Mr. Data, "Do you consider your position so weak that it cannot withstand debate?"
I wholeheartedly support women who have genuinely been assaulted or worse. What I don't support are radical feminists twisting things that aren't abuse into abuse, such as certain examples of catcalling.
"Hey you look beautiful!", many would interpret that as sexual harassment when it's not.
It's not the existence of radicals it's the damage they can cause to innocent people. I guess you never learned anything from the people who spread rumors about you and hated on you for no reason at your school, pity.
@Guanfei I'm not sure where you're from but the most recent change in divorce in the U. S, is the No Fault divorce which makes it absurdly easy to end a marriage but prior to that the main thing holding people from getting a divorce was social stigma, not law.
More like how much men hate when you falsely accuse us and our jobs end up in jeopardy because the laws take women's words without any concrete evidence...
It's questioning feminism that will get you tortured and burned at the stake since the cult of feminism is unable to stand the light of reason and reality, it's all about dark deception and subjective "feels".
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions