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".
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
42Opinion
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.
The people who do understand that drop out as well, that's the problem.
@AllThatSweetJazz they have no reason to drop out though, so maybe it’s best if they do as well.
Of course they have reasons for dropping out.
@AllThatSweetJazz what reasons would that be? Obviously they don't feel threatened since they know where the line is drawn?
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."
Sigh.
@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
Define harassment in a way that makes it unmistakable and not open to interpretation in the eye of the law.
@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.
So aziz did nothing wrong then?
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.
@AllThatSweetJazz he did. She told him to stop/chill several times and pointed out she didn’t want to have sex. He kept pushing.
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.
Flirting is definitely not the same as sexual harassment. We have nothing to worry about.
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.
Where is the "All genders live in peace and harmony" option?
It's there right beside the "Everything is sunshine and rainbows and the streets are paved with gold" option.
A sexual cold war lol, no one with a brain would believe in that nonsense
The only people who think a sexual cold water is coming are people without a brain
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.
you aren't far from that.
for the record cat calling isn't right... it should be illegal since it is intimidating
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
@Iamagoodguy Humans have a right to feel lonely. They have hearts filled with no love from a boyfriend/girlfriend.
Sort of.
Luckily this idiotism exists only in North America and the UK.
You should patent that quote as the 2018 " sexual revolutionary words". Sexual Cold War lol
The "sexual Cold War" started when Hillary announced she would be running for DEM candidate.
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.
@shephardjhon That war was started 100 years ago, when women dared to ask voting rights.
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
@shephardjhon Look up 19th Amendment
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.
@shephardjhon No feminist went to jail?
mashable.com/.../#YWrYO_nergq7
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...tured-Night-Terror.html
@shephardjhon African Americans too had the right to vote, but in many states it was denied to them until the sixties.
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.
If you have time to argue here. you have time to watch the last 5-10 minutes of the video.
@shephardjhon Nothing automatic
Sorry, I just came to check out Muumipappa.
Lmao, me too. 😂
<3 papapapa-pappapapapa
Hmm, well, the Christian Church in America should be happy. They believe it's a grave sin, no?
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.
I hope so, its time to teach them that they're not that special
well if telling your friend you think a girl is hot is now considered harassment or if talking to a girl is then yes if not then no
I wouldn't call it a cold war.
There's a dramatic difference between flirting and harassment. Its not a thin line..
You need to tell the feminazis who are manipulating the law that simple fact so they can tell you about your internalized misogyny.
Blame it on women and feminazis. They have set up new standards.
Troll take that accepts only radical brown nosing misogynist opinions, obvious troll is obvious.
2/10
How much men hate when women speak for justice!
That's a magnificent bullshit.
What you see above is a sample of hate that I was talking about!
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.
Take this simple concept here:
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.
I got the term Cold War from this video. This is the one I should have posted instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA9tUXNecLU
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.
@Uhhjsshshdh Tell me where Radicalism didn't exist.
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.
Instant reaction in the video is to get the government involved in peoples sex lives. Typical.
@Charleslvajr Tbh I believe that people should get rid of pre-marital sex already.
When sex was restricted to only within marriage, marriages did last a lot longer.
@Charleslvajr Probably because it was harder to divorce. When you were even allowed to.
@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...
@NewEnglandDude Oh, a woman would never do that, no. They are perfect little angels with glitter for souls.
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".
@Charleslvajr Yay an old person! I apologize that my generation has ruined society with modern feminism
@Uhhjsshshdh I'm sorry feminism couldn't stay the course and became a Marxist ideology.