Street Harassment


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:

If that's the social expectation where you live, then there's no problem. Hell, even if that's not the social expectation then it's not a real problem, though you might be freaking some people out.

It's when you single out women you find attractive, whether that's for a simple greeting, a "harmless" complement, or something worse, that you're starting to be creepy.
Being more than a bit careless throwing "you" around, insofar as KenderKin specifically stated that he does NOT do what you're claiming in the 2nd paragraph. Most especially since you used "you" in the preceeding paragraph to specifically refer to him, not in any general sense.

Not what I was thinking, but I see how it could be read that way.

Not meant to accuse you, Kenderkin.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff at one point asked me if I didn't see anything wrong with asking someone if they want to have sex with you. I don't. Sex is not evil. Wanting sex is not evil. Asking people if they want to have sex is not evil either (obnoxious and kinda creepy, sure, but not evil).
Perhaps a miscommunication. I didn't say evil. And I would say that being "obnoxious and kinda creepy" is wrong. Not evil.

"Morally Wrong" and "Evil" carry pretty much the same meaning. One word just sounds "heavier". I only used the word "evil" because I had already used the word "wrong" too many times, and repeating words and terms is unpleasant for the listener/reader.

"Annoying" is just something that causes a nuisance, but not necessarily morally wrong. "Creepy" is just something that makes you feel uncomfortable, that doesn't necessarily mean it's morally wrong either.

thejeff wrote:
Obviously depending on context. There are contexts where asking someone if they want to have sex is perfectly fine. Strangers walking down the street is not one of those contexts.

Perhaps... It's obnoxious and annoying. But little more than that. When I asked what constitutes catcalling, the reply I got was "women are not there for you to flirt with! It's not their job... yadda yadda yadda... moral superiority!". I was treated as if I were some sort of would-be sexual assailant looking for justification for his actions... And my question went unanswered. This kind of thing makes it very difficult for me to take white-knight types seriously...

Again... If all a guy does is catcall... Why is it anything other than a minor nuisance? The girl in the video compares catcalling and looking at women to sexual assault! If that's not blowing things out of proportion, I don't know what is...

Additionally, while every one has the right to dress however they want, and doing so does not give anyone the right to touch them against their will or force them to do anything, it's seriously hypocritical to dress in a way that you (general you, not you you) define as "provocative" and then act outraged when people react to it. "That which causes a strong reaction" is the very definition of "provocative".

IMHO, catcalling is just not enough of an issue to limit people's right to speak freely (and I'm pretty sure people have the right to speak to whoever they want about whatever they want, just like other people have the right to not listen to them), and is certainly not enough to encourage a culture of violence. We spent the last 200,000 years marching towards the lessening of violence in civilized society. The fact that a girl is momentarily uncomfortable by a less-than-classy comment is not enough justification to make violence an acceptable response.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KenderKin wrote:

So here we are again....

I greet people on the street, in outdoor markets, and what not.
I greet young, old, both male and female people.

My greeting is short and has no motive/entitlement to it.
Occassionally it is just a nod.

So if I greet someone and they don't greet me back that's fine, I am not then butt-hurt nor demanding and just go on with my life.
In many cases I might even not see their return nod as they pass....

Where I live most people greet you back, so I have yet to encounter the problem.

I think this actually has a fair amount to do with the prevalence of harrasment, and it's impact. Approaching someone in a social situation and trying to get their attention, is both reasonable, and generally universally expected. Approaching someone in a non-social situations is at best annoying, and at worst frightening or intimidating.

In some places, walking down the street is a social situation. You are very likely to say hi and maybe even talk to random people on the street. This is particularly true in places where you might very well know most of the people around.

In a place like new york, walking down the street is categorically not a social situation. I literally could not get to work if I attempted to greet everyone I passed, even with a nod, when i walk near the Trade Center every morning.

That means a woman walking down the street of New York is explicately not in a social situation, and as such, there is no expectation of contact with anyone. Approaching someone, even politely, in that situation is not ok. Period. You are not in a social situation, and consequently, this person has not given open indication they wish to socialize. Its entirely possible that a woman walking down the street may have a desire to strike up a conversation with someone, but you have no way to know that given the non-social context of walking down a city street. So simply, dont do it.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Approaching someone, even politely, in that situation is not ok. Period.

I quibble with the "period." As I pointed out any number of times, there are some situations in which it needs to be OK -- warning people of unsafe conditions up ahead, for example, or alerting them that they've dropped something. There are some situations in which I can only wish it were OK -- try politely asking for directions while people walk past you and/or shove you aside (the latter makes me nostalgic for Vienna, where it was never a problem and you could get them in almost any language).

In the situation you're describing, it's definitely not okay to approach women with lame comments or attempted pickup lines or any of that crap. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be okay to address anyone, ever.


Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff at one point asked me if I didn't see anything wrong with asking someone if they want to have sex with you. I don't. Sex is not evil. Wanting sex is not evil. Asking people if they want to have sex is not evil either (obnoxious and kinda creepy, sure, but not evil).
Perhaps a miscommunication. I didn't say evil. And I would say that being "obnoxious and kinda creepy" is wrong. Not evil.

"Morally Wrong" and "Evil" carry pretty much the same meaning. One word just sounds "heavier". I only used the word "evil" because I had already used the word "wrong" too many times, and repeating words and terms is unpleasant for the listener/reader.

"Annoying" is just something that causes a nuisance, but not necessarily morally wrong. "Creepy" is just something that makes you feel uncomfortable, that doesn't necessarily mean it's morally wrong either.

thejeff wrote:
Obviously depending on context. There are contexts where asking someone if they want to have sex is perfectly fine. Strangers walking down the street is not one of those contexts.
Perhaps... It's obnoxious and annoying. But little more than that. When I asked what constitutes catcalling, the reply I got was "women are not there for you to flirt with! It's not their job... yadda yadda yadda... moral superiority!". I was treated as if I were some sort of would-be sexual assailant looking for justification for his actions... And my question went unanswered. This kind of thing makes it very difficult for me to take white-knight types seriously...

You asked for a definition of catcalling. In that same post you also asked " In fact what's wrong with asking someone "Hey, wanna have sex?"?"

and complained about not being able to flirt with strange women
Quote:
if a man can't compliment an woman, how exactly is he supposed to talk to her if he's interested? Does he have to guess if she likes him? Should he never again attempt to flirt with anyone he doesn't know really well?

As well as implying that pretty much anything short of physical force or touching was fine.

Perhaps I should have ignored the creepier aspects of your post and only answered the least problematic "What is catcalling?" part, but I took it as a whole and responded to the whole thing.


City life.

It's not just women you don't talk to.

You learn very quickly that even a blank glance in someone's direction -- to, you know, see what's going on around you -- can result in a "What the f*#& are you lookin' at?" and the threat of physical violence.

That's the environment we're talking about. And please note, the type of person willing to break the social contract as above, is ALSO the type of person most likely to say something to a passing woman.

And before DB gets on my case again, the actual incident I'm referring to above was also a caucasian man.


I might be confused, but I read most of Lemmy's "why nots" as a devil's advocate kind of thing, asking for it can be spelled out for the benefit of the conversation -- and not necessarily as a defense of said behavior. Then again, I'm not Lemmy, so I can't say for sure.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
City life. It's not just women you don't talk to. You learn very quickly that even a blank glance in someone's direction -- to, you know, see what's going on around you -- can result in a "What the f*#& are you lookin' at?" and the threat of physical violence.

Yeah, for all the people defending this as an ideal state, I question whether the pros outweight the cons. I've been in large, bustling cities where you can talk to people -- Vienna (just don't address any women wearing sacks!), Belgrade, et al. -- and saw no catcalling in any of those places.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I might be confused, but I read most of Lemmy's "why nots" as a devil's advocate kind of thing, asking for it can be spelled out for the benefit of the conversation -- and not necessarily as a defense of said behavior. Then again, I'm not Lemmy, so I can't say for sure.

Perhaps. But he went on to defend the "ask for sex" part. And the "But then how will men be able to find women" part is a standard apologist line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

City life.

It's not just women you don't talk to.

You learn very quickly that even a blank glance in someone's direction -- to, you know, see what's going on around you -- can result in a "What the f*#& are you lookin' at?" and the threat of physical violence.

City Life...

Reminds me of Iraq. The obvious answer to that question in that context is a target to engage and a threat to eliminate.

I recall two women arguing loudly with each other once at the park, I had my dog. They (apparently forgetting each other decided to focus on me) asked me that type of menacing question ("WTF you looking at!") to which I loudly responded "Dog S&+~!"

Lots of other people got a laugh out of that.

So I guess we are saying context matters!


I'm hoping I can get Don Juan de Doodlebug to use the term "liberal feminists" one more time.

What happened Don, did a feminist steal your bike or something?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
You asked for a definition of catcalling. In that same post you also asked " In fact what's wrong with asking someone "Hey, wanna have sex?"?"

Yup. And no one answered. You just said it was wrong, but gave no reasons as to why it is so. The closest I got for a reason is "it's annoying", but as I mentioned before "annoying" is the same as "wrong".

thejeff wrote:
and complained about not being able to flirt with strange women

I didn't complain about anything, actually. I asked how should a I man talk to a woman. I know couples who met each other in coffee shops, bus rides and even vending machines, so apparently, there is a productive way of starting a conversation with attractive strangers. I merely ask what is it. No one answered.

thejeff wrote:
As well as implying that pretty much anything short of physical force or touching was fine.

Sure, let's add "invading your personal space" and "stalking" to the list of do-nots. Buy I take issue with the notion that anything a person does or say can be considered wrong because it makes someone else feel uncomfortable. If that's all it does and isn't done with ill-intent, then I honestly don't see it as anything other than a minor nuisance.

thejeff wrote:
Perhaps I should have ignored the creepier aspects of your post and only answered the least problematic "What is catcalling?" part, but I took it as a whole and responded to the whole thing.

You take genuine questions as if I were trying to imply something. I didn't. I asked questions. I wouldn't be offended if someone asked me if I want to have sex, even if they were I can't find myself even marginally attracted to. I'd possibly feel uncomfortable and annoyed, but I wouldn't say the person is doing anything morally wrong, unless he/she tried to force the issue.

I can see how that happening multiple times would become annoying, but I don't see how it makes it more (or less) morally reprehensible. And I don't see how asking anyone anything (as long as it's not made with ill-intent and doesn't cause any harm) is wrong. The other person can always say "no" or ignore the person asking, after all.

And even after I repeatedly said that 1- I don't usually speak to strangers, men or women. 2- I don't necessarily disagree with you and 3- I'm not defending catcalling, the replies I got were still made as if I were some kind of degenerate. IMO, this trigger-happy reaction to anyone who doesn't automatically know or agree with your instance on catcalling seriously harms your argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What if we all PM Lemmy for sex?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
What if we all PM Lemmy for sex?

Why bother with PMs, you trying to hide your shame?

Hey Lemmy, wanna have sex?

*crosses fingers*


Lemmy wrote:
And even after I repeatedly said that 1- I don't usually speak to strangers, men or women. 2- I don't necessarily disagree with you and 3- I'm not defending catcalling, the replies I got were still made as if I were some kind of degenerate. IMO, this trigger-happy reaction to anyone who doesn't automatically know or agree with your instance on catcalling seriously harms your argument.

More likely it is the result of an increasingly sprawling and contentious thread, which encourages people to cherry-pick single statements to address rather than trying to process the entire beast.

Like I did just there.

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:

I think the only viable approach is for the people(men) who aren't actually jerks to not just not participate, but to actively call out the harassment.

TRUTH


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Approaching someone, even politely, in that situation is not ok. Period.

I have no idea how people act in new york but this statement sounds so absurd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Richard McGuffin wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I think the only viable approach is for the people(men) who aren't actually jerks to not just not participate, but to actively call out the harassment.

TRUTH

Except anyone who does it doesn't care what you think, in my experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
And even after I repeatedly said that 1- I don't usually speak to strangers, men or women. 2- I don't necessarily disagree with you and 3- I'm not defending catcalling, the replies I got were still made as if I were some kind of degenerate. IMO, this trigger-happy reaction to anyone who doesn't automatically know or agree with your instance on catcalling seriously harms your argument.

More likely it is the result of an increasingly sprawling and contentious thread, which encourages people to cherry-pick single statements to address rather than trying to process the entire beast.

Like I did just there.

The reaction is understandable, but not productive.

Nicos wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Approaching someone, even politely, in that situation is not ok. Period.
I have no idea how people act in new york but this statement sounds so absurd.

It sounds pretty absurd to me too. Isn't "politely" the very definition of how it's acceptable to approach someone?


It's more than annoying from what I've gathered from conversation with actual women. They tell me that on a good day it's moderately creepy and on a bad day it hits on triggers, inspiring fear and past bad experiences.

From what I recall from the various LGBT/homosexuality in Golarion/etc threads, just because something doesn't upset you (the universal you) or cause you grief doesn't mean it isn't upsetting to others.

While there are some people who may have met a person via telling them they are beautiful on the street, I imagine the number of cases of that are relatively small. While you (specific Lemmy you) wouldn't be upset if someone asked you for sex, that doesn't seem to hold true for many women (at least in the sample I've taken), who claim that they would move immediately away from such an individual.

The worry isn't that they can just ignore it, or say no, or that the speaker doesn't mean harm. It's what about that guy? Or that one? Or that one? My wife tells me that she's always cautious around strange men, because she isn't aware of what will be the trigger to set them off and get her drug away by someone usually stronger or faster or meaner than her.

tl;dr: just because it wouldn't be a problem for you, it might be a problem for them.


Lemmy wrote:
You take genuine questions as if I were trying to imply something. I didn't. I asked questions. I wouldn't be offended if someone asked me if I want to have sex, even if they were I can't find myself even marginally attracted to. I'd possibly feel uncomfortable and annoyed, but I wouldn't say the person is doing anything morally wrong, unless he/she tried to force the issue.

Alright. Perhaps I was reading more into your post than was there. I apologize. I'll try not to do so again.

Part of the larger confusion might come from the confusion above of "Evil" and "Wrong", along with your introduction of "morally wrong". I see a distinction between the two that you apparently don't. (Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm trying not to make assumptions.)

I would say that rudeness is wrong, but not evil. Rape would be evil (and wrong). I'm not sure where morally wrong would fall. It's not a term I'm likely to use.
If all you're saying is that the things we're talking about are rude and obnoxious and creepy, but don't actually fall to the level of Evil, then I suspect we're probably closer than we seem.


knightnday wrote:

It's more than annoying from what I've gathered from conversation with actual women. They tell me that on a good day it's moderately creepy and on a bad day it hits on triggers, inspiring fear and past bad experiences.

From what I recall from the various LGBT/homosexuality in Golarion/etc threads, just because something doesn't upset you (the universal you) or cause you grief doesn't mean it isn't upsetting to others.

True, but just because it upsets someone, it doesn't mean it's morally wrong.

knightnday wrote:

While there are some people who may have met a person via telling them they are beautiful on the street, I imagine the number of cases of that are relatively small. While you (specific Lemmy you) wouldn't be upset if someone asked you for sex, that doesn't seem to hold true for many women (at least in the sample I've taken), who claim that they would move immediately away from such an individual.

The worry isn't that they can just ignore it, or say no, or that the speaker doesn't mean harm. It's what about that guy? Or that one? Or that one? My wife tells me that she's always cautious around strange men, because she isn't aware of what will be the trigger to set them off and get her drug away by someone usually stronger or faster or meaner than her.

tl;dr: just because it wouldn't be a problem for you, it might be a problem for them.

But you see... There is a pretty big different between catcalling and "stalking/threatening/assaulting someone. The former seems to be a minor nuisance. The latter is a very serious, very evil crime, that may or may not be preceded by the first. Similarly, flipping someone off then stabbing them with a knife is evil... But just because it preceded an act of violence, flipping someone off is not as serious as the stabbing itself.

If you're reasonably sure that you won't be stabbed, then someone flipping you off is a minor nuisance at best... If you cannot be moderately sure you won't be stabbed, then that is the real issue.

If a woman lives somewhere where she is reasonably safe from being assaulted (I say "reasonably" because no one is ever 100% safe from anything), then catcalling is an obnoxious but relatively harmless behavior... If she lives in a place where she doesn't feel safe, then we have a much bigger issue here.

Do you see why I ask "What constitutes catcalling, and why is it so bad?"? Because I see a damn wide gap between someone who is rude/obnoxious and someone who is rude/obnoxious and willing to assault someone.


thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
You take genuine questions as if I were trying to imply something. I didn't. I asked questions. I wouldn't be offended if someone asked me if I want to have sex, even if they were I can't find myself even marginally attracted to. I'd possibly feel uncomfortable and annoyed, but I wouldn't say the person is doing anything morally wrong, unless he/she tried to force the issue.

Alright. Perhaps I was reading more into your post than was there. I apologize. I'll try not to do so again.

Part of the larger confusion might come from the confusion above of "Evil" and "Wrong", along with your introduction of "morally wrong". I see a distinction between the two that you apparently don't. (Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm trying not to make assumptions.)

I would say that rudeness is wrong, but not evil. Rape would be evil (and wrong). I'm not sure where morally wrong would fall. It's not a term I'm likely to use.
If all you're saying is that the things we're talking about are rude and obnoxious and creepy, but don't actually fall to the level of Evil, then I suspect we're probably closer than we seem.

"Evil" is, IMHO, the very same thing as "morally wrong". But it's a more loaded term, often equated to "extremely morally wrong". I didn't make that distinction in my post, though. I should have, but I forgot about it because I was more worried about making the post a smoother read.


Lemmy wrote:
knightnday wrote:

It's more than annoying from what I've gathered from conversation with actual women. They tell me that on a good day it's moderately creepy and on a bad day it hits on triggers, inspiring fear and past bad experiences.

From what I recall from the various LGBT/homosexuality in Golarion/etc threads, just because something doesn't upset you (the universal you) or cause you grief doesn't mean it isn't upsetting to others.

True, but just because it upsets someone, it doesn't mean it's morally wrong.

knightnday wrote:

While there are some people who may have met a person via telling them they are beautiful on the street, I imagine the number of cases of that are relatively small. While you (specific Lemmy you) wouldn't be upset if someone asked you for sex, that doesn't seem to hold true for many women (at least in the sample I've taken), who claim that they would move immediately away from such an individual.

The worry isn't that they can just ignore it, or say no, or that the speaker doesn't mean harm. It's what about that guy? Or that one? Or that one? My wife tells me that she's always cautious around strange men, because she isn't aware of what will be the trigger to set them off and get her drug away by someone usually stronger or faster or meaner than her.

tl;dr: just because it wouldn't be a problem for you, it might be a problem for them.

But you see... There is a pretty big different between catcalling and "stalking/threatening/assaulting someone. The former seems to be a minor nuisance. The latter is a very serious, very evil crime, that may or may not be preceded by the first. Similarly, flipping someone off then stabbing them with a knife is evil... But just because it preceded an act of violence, flipping someone off is not as serious as the stabbing itself.

If you're reasonably sure that you won't be stabbed, then someone flipping you off is a minor nuisance at best... If you cannot be moderately sure you won't be stabbed, then that is the real issue.

If a woman lives somewhere where she is reasonably safe from being assaulted (I say "reasonably" because no one is ever 100% safe from anything), then catcalling is an obnoxious but relatively harmless behavior... If she lives in a place where she doesn't feel safe, then we have a much bigger issue here.

Do you see why I ask "What constitutes catcalling, and why is it so bad?"? Because I see a damn wide gap between someone who is rude/obnoxious and someone who is rude/obnoxious and willing to assault someone.

The problem becomes that you are never really sure that you won't be assaulted -- one only has to look at the news on any given day to see people shooting up schools or office buildings or people on the street for whatever reason. That seems to be the overriding concern for many of these women (at least the ones I speak with about the topic.)

Yes, for the most part it is obnoxious and an unnecessary part of the day. And their concern is they don't know when it will go from obnoxious to dangerous; I imagine some of the men involved wouldn't know until that point occurred for them as well.

People seem very ready to become violent or threatening at the drop of a hat. Just this week two people got into a slap fight while in line at the store for bumping one of them with a basket. I'd say it wasn't like that in the Good Old Days, but that is likely just hopeful wishes rather than reality.

I worry less about this being "Evil" or "morally wrong" and more that it is just unnecessary. If someone is looking to meet women (or men), there are easier ways to do it with a larger chance of success. If it's a matter of being friendly, then I am glad there are friendly people out there but shouldn't one also take the conversation into consideration and ramp back, review the body language of the people around you and decide that not everyone is deserving of your attention?

I think the "bad" catcallers are doing it because they can. Much like doing this on the Internet, one can say what they will on the street to a moving target that is likely unwilling or unable to deal with the problem. Some people get a charge out of making others uncomfortable or a sense of power out of getting away with it.

I'd say that most men grow out of that in their teens, but the men in the videos seem much older than that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

News these days is slowly crossing the line from informative to entertainment. They want viewers and are happy to run only the stories that get attention. Sex sells isn't even a new concept, same with violence.

The point? Just because violence is all you're likely to see on the news these days, actual violence is in decline. Keeping people frightened is a good tool of the people in charge of protection. This goes a long way towards driving weaker people to see threats everywhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I'm just going to go with what was said, but this woman herself said that she dressed provocatively(sp?), correct?

Provocative:
1.Serving or tending to elicit a strong, often negative sentiment in another person; exasperating.
2.Serving or tending to excite, stimulate or arouse sexual interest.

So it seems that she got the response that she was obviously looking for as she herself said she dressed that way, according to the definition of the word, correct? So explain to me why she is QQ'ing about it again?


lorenlord wrote:

So, I'm just going to go with what was said, but this woman herself said that she dressed provocatively(sp?), correct?

Provocative:
1.Serving or tending to elicit a strong, often negative sentiment in another person; exasperating.
2.Serving or tending to excite, stimulate or arouse sexual interest.

So it seems that she got the response that she was obviously looking for as she herself said she dressed that way, according to the definition of the word, correct? So explain to me why she is QQ'ing about it again?

Which woman?

Mythic Evil Lincoln's girlfriend from the OP?

Quote:
The outfit is demure, not that it should matter, but it seems relevant to mention.

Shoshana in the "100 catcalls" video? Crewcut T-shirt and jeans and you can see for yourself what she looks like. I don't believe she called it "provocative" and I certainly wouldn't.


Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?


lorenlord wrote:

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.


Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.

Thank you, Cain, for the clarification. I knew i had seen it somewhere and read about the same girl saying that she dressed provocatively and was complaining about the catcalls.


lorenlord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.
Thank you, Cain, for the clarification. I knew i had seen it somewhere and read about the same girl saying that she dressed provocatively and was complaining about the catcalls.

And if she's going to dress like that, she's just asking for it, right? I know when I go outside I specifically dress to make myself unattractive.


lorenlord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.
Thank you, Cain, for the clarification. I knew i had seen it somewhere and read about the same girl saying that she dressed provocatively and was complaining about the catcalls.

My first impression of the outfit she was wearing in the one you are thinking of was that she was dressed like a streetwalker.


Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.
Thank you, Cain, for the clarification. I knew i had seen it somewhere and read about the same girl saying that she dressed provocatively and was complaining about the catcalls.
My first impression of the outfit she was wearing in the one you are thinking of was that she was dressed like a streetwalker.

Regardless, given that we've got other examples, from personal anecdotes to the 100 catcalls video, it seems hard to blame it all on the "girl dressing provocatively".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.
Thank you, Cain, for the clarification. I knew i had seen it somewhere and read about the same girl saying that she dressed provocatively and was complaining about the catcalls.
My first impression of the outfit she was wearing in the one you are thinking of was that she was dressed like a streetwalker.
Regardless, given that we've got other examples, from personal anecdotes to the 100 catcalls video, it seems hard to blame it all on the "girl dressing provocatively".

It's amazing how you put words in people's mouths.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Dressing provocatively" to me is a B.S. excuse for poor behavior. I don't care if a woman walks down the street wearing nothing but a g-string and pasties -- people might stare at her, but there's no justification for any kind of commentary or actual harrassment (except maybe by the police in conservative places, which I also oppose, but that's neither here nor there).

It reminds me of some of the Islamist excuses for imposing the Burqa on women: "Well, men are like feral cats, and if easy meat is put in front of them, what do you expect them to do?" Answer: I expect them to act like men, thank you, rather than like feral cats.

So, yeah, don't care what she's wearing, or not wearing. I can understand people staring because of the absurd and anachronistic taboo on even partial nudity in the U.S., but there's no excuse for comments or catcalls, unless the woman in question is standing there waving at people as they pass by.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

"Dressing provocatively" to me is a B.S. excuse for poor behavior. I don't care if a woman walks down the street wearing nothing but a g-string and pasties -- people might stare at her, but there's no justification for any kind of commentary or actual harrassment (except maybe by the police in conservative places, which I also oppose, but that's neither here nor there).

It reminds me of Islamist excuses for imposing the Burqua on women: "Well, men are like feral cats, and if easy meat is put in front of them, what do you expect them to do?" Answer: I expect them to act like men, thank you, rather than like feral cats.

So, yeah, don't care what she's wearing. Stare if you have to, but keep your comments to yourself.

In the video in question the woman asks the question "why can't I dress provocatively and not have people react?" or something stupid to that effect. Dressed provocatively is her words for how she is dressed. And she complains about men glancing at her.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Dressed provocatively is her words for how she is dressed. And she complains about men glancing at her.

Like I said, glancing should be expected, even outright stares if it's "provocative" enough -- that's the culture we live in. Verbal taunting is over the line no matter how "provocative" her dress is, however.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread seems predictably long.

Have y'all gotten to point yet where we all agree that women don't owe anyone time or conversation just because they're walking around outside? Yes? No?


mechaPoet wrote:
This thread seems predictably long. Have y'all gotten to point yet where we all agree that women don't owe anyone time or conversation just because they're walking around outside? Yes? No?

I think that was on page 1. Also, the thread was a lot longer, but two or so pages got wiped out by the mods.


Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.
Thank you, Cain, for the clarification. I knew i had seen it somewhere and read about the same girl saying that she dressed provocatively and was complaining about the catcalls.
My first impression of the outfit she was wearing in the one you are thinking of was that she was dressed like a streetwalker.
Regardless, given that we've got other examples, from personal anecdotes to the 100 catcalls video, it seems hard to blame it all on the "girl dressing provocatively".
It's amazing how you put words in people's mouths.

Fair, I suppose.

Restated:
Given that we have evidence that the behavior is the same or at least similar, regardless of whether the woman in question is dressed provocatively or not, is it really worth even debating whether it's even worth talking about the consequences of dressing provocatively?


Caineach wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

"Dressing provocatively" to me is a B.S. excuse for poor behavior. I don't care if a woman walks down the street wearing nothing but a g-string and pasties -- people might stare at her, but there's no justification for any kind of commentary or actual harrassment (except maybe by the police in conservative places, which I also oppose, but that's neither here nor there).

It reminds me of Islamist excuses for imposing the Burqua on women: "Well, men are like feral cats, and if easy meat is put in front of them, what do you expect them to do?" Answer: I expect them to act like men, thank you, rather than like feral cats.

So, yeah, don't care what she's wearing. Stare if you have to, but keep your comments to yourself.

In the video in question the woman asks the question "why can't I dress provocatively and not have people react?" or something stupid to that effect. Dressed provocatively is her words for how she is dressed. And she complains about men glancing at her.

Can we link this video so we all at least know what we're talking about?


Kirth Gersen wrote:

"Dressing provocatively" to me is a B.S. excuse for poor behavior. I don't care if a woman walks down the street wearing nothing but a g-string and pasties -- people might stare at her, but there's no justification for any kind of commentary or actual harrassment (except maybe by the police in conservative places, which I also oppose, but that's neither here nor there).

It reminds me of some of the Islamist excuses for imposing the Burqa on women: "Well, men are like feral cats, and if easy meat is put in front of them, what do you expect them to do?" Answer: I expect them to act like men, thank you, rather than like feral cats.

So, yeah, don't care what she's wearing, or not wearing. I can understand people staring because of the absurd and anachronistic taboo on even partial nudity in the U.S., but there's no excuse for comments or catcalls, unless the woman in question is standing there waving at people as they pass by.

How you dress is an expression, little different than actual speech. Can you yell out what you want and demand that no one respond? If her appearance makes others uncomfortable do they have no right to respond? What if others take her partial nudity as sexual harassment, since you better bet that a man having his parts out would be seen as such

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JurgenV wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

"Dressing provocatively" to me is a B.S. excuse for poor behavior. I don't care if a woman walks down the street wearing nothing but a g-string and pasties -- people might stare at her, but there's no justification for any kind of commentary or actual harrassment (except maybe by the police in conservative places, which I also oppose, but that's neither here nor there).

It reminds me of some of the Islamist excuses for imposing the Burqa on women: "Well, men are like feral cats, and if easy meat is put in front of them, what do you expect them to do?" Answer: I expect them to act like men, thank you, rather than like feral cats.

So, yeah, don't care what she's wearing, or not wearing. I can understand people staring because of the absurd and anachronistic taboo on even partial nudity in the U.S., but there's no excuse for comments or catcalls, unless the woman in question is standing there waving at people as they pass by.

How you dress is an expression, little different than actual speech. Can you yell out what you want and demand that no one respond? If her appearance makes others uncomfortable do they have no right to respond? What if others take her partial nudity as sexual harassment, since you better bet that a man having his parts out would be seen as such

1. How someone dresses is expressive, but is hardly the same as shouting in the streets.

1a. I like to wear dresses because I look hella cute in them and they make me feel good. That's for my own satisfaction and self-esteem. It's not an invitation to a conversation, unless I'm wearing a dress that literally has text printed on it that invites a conversation.

2. You can respond if someone's clothes make you uncomfortable, but you may not harass them. There's also an issue of context here, of course. If you're uncomfortable because I'm wearing flip flops to your formal dinner, then that's something you can discuss politely. If you're uncomfortable because someone is wearing a t-shirt with hate speech on it in public, then I wouldn't fault you for getting a bit more disapproving. If you're uncomfortable because a woman's outfit shows "too much skin," I have to ask: too much skin for what? Please enlighten me as to what kind of "uncomfortable" you're talking about.

3. I'm not sure what you mean by "partial nudity," but flashing, for instance, is sexual assault no matter a person's gender. Wearing short shorts is not an act of sexual assault, no matter how you twist it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

"Dressing provocatively" to me is a B.S. excuse for poor behavior. I don't care if a woman walks down the street wearing nothing but a g-string and pasties -- people might stare at her, but there's no justification for any kind of commentary or actual harrassment (except maybe by the police in conservative places, which I also oppose, but that's neither here nor there).

It reminds me of Islamist excuses for imposing the Burqua on women: "Well, men are like feral cats, and if easy meat is put in front of them, what do you expect them to do?" Answer: I expect them to act like men, thank you, rather than like feral cats.

So, yeah, don't care what she's wearing. Stare if you have to, but keep your comments to yourself.

In the video in question the woman asks the question "why can't I dress provocatively and not have people react?" or something stupid to that effect. Dressed provocatively is her words for how she is dressed. And she complains about men glancing at her.
Can we link this video so we all at least know what we're talking about?

The street harrassment video I haven't watched all of it, mostly just the takedown video that Lemmy posted of it on page 2

The quote, at ~1:45 "I know the way I dress is provocative, but that doesn't mean that I should have to deal with it."

watching the first video some more, they make some decent points, but have a whole lot of dumb in there too, like equating the various glances and looks with actual sexual assault.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.
Thank you, Cain, for the clarification. I knew i had seen it somewhere and read about the same girl saying that she dressed provocatively and was complaining about the catcalls.
My first impression of the outfit she was wearing in the one you are thinking of was that she was dressed like a streetwalker.
Regardless, given that we've got other examples, from personal anecdotes to the 100 catcalls video, it seems hard to blame it all on the "girl dressing provocatively".
It's amazing how you put words in people's mouths.

Thank you again, Cain. Durngurn likes to put words in my mouth and jump off of the conclusion bridge.

She's admitting she dresses provocatively. How about Durngurn and thejeff look up the freking definition of provocative so I dont have to post it YET AGAIN. She has ZERO right to QQ, due to the fact that she is getting EXACTLY the response of what the definition is of how she HERSELF admits to dressing. SO mission accomplished for her.

Just so you don't have to look:

Provocative:
1.Serving or tending to elicit a strong, often negative sentiment in another person; exasperating.
2.Serving or tending to excite, stimulate or arouse sexual interest.

That she does. So her argument goes flush.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Which means precisely jack.

If someone dresses in the colors of a sports team you dislike, thereby being provocative, you have zero right to yell things at them or abuse them verbally.

What you seem to be doing is victim blaming/shaming. The way she chose to dress doesn't give you any implicit right to abuse her. Dressing like a hipster doesn't give someone the right to abuse you. Wearing an RPG shirt doesn't give someone the right to call you names.

"Her clothes made me do it, Officer" doesn't wash.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lorenlord wrote:


She's admitting she dresses provocatively. How about Durngurn and thejeff look up the freking definition of provocative so I dont have to post it YET AGAIN. She has ZERO right to QQ, due to the fact that she is getting EXACTLY the response of what the definition is of how she HERSELF admits to dressing. SO mission accomplished for her.

That she does. So her argument goes flush.

Assuming that does flush her argument, which I will accept for the sake of argument, that deals with one example from one of the videos. Since the other women were not doing so and yet got similar responses, I don't see any reason to think dressing provocatively actually has anything to do with the the larger question.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

knightnday wrote:

Which means precisely jack.

If someone dresses in the colors of a sports team you dislike, thereby being provocative, you have zero right to yell things at them or abuse them verbally.

What you seem to be doing is victim blaming/shaming. The way she chose to dress doesn't give you any implicit right to abuse her. Dressing like a hipster doesn't give someone the right to abuse you. Wearing an RPG shirt doesn't give someone the right to call you names.

"Her clothes made me do it, Officer" doesn't wash.

Basically, this.

Is someone wearing provocative clothing? Okay. Things that are still s*@$ty, if not illegal, to do based on that:
Cat-calling
Creepy staring
Touching them without their explicit consent
Making them feel uncomfortable with any sort of unwanted attention

Is it really so hard to grasp the concept that people have a responsibility to control their own actions?


Well, I have 9 minutes, so let's see whether I can address Lemmy's question directly, "What is wrong with walking up to a woman on the street, asking her whether she'll have sex with you, and accepting, 'No,' or abject silence as an answer?"

It also addresses most of the other stuff here, but I've been trying not to get involved (again). But hey... 8 minutes...

I accept two rules of social responsibility:

(1) The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I've been told I'm a racist for believing this. I've seen the usual B.S. about, "What about masochists?", but I've known two real live masochists and they did NOT want to be assaulted on the streets.

So, would YOU mind if someone yelled, "Hey, sexy! Wanna get nekkid and have some fun?" at you?

If you're a man, probably not. My one issue with Rule #1 is that it is true that different people have different world views. While most men wouldn't mind being invited to bed a woman, most women find it horrifically offensive to be objectified in such a manner.

My wife has fought her entire life to be taken seriously in the computer industry. "Just because I have breasts doesn't mean I belong in marketing, d**n it!!!"

So women are far more sensitive than men on this issue of objectification and being treated as little more than sexual gratification devices.

(2) The Parents' Rule: If everyone else did it, would the world be a better place?
Here's where Lemmy's argument breaks down. Someone mentioned passing 3500 people a day on the way to work. In a major metropolitan area, that's a believable number.
What if every. Single. Person. You. Passed. Propositioned you for sex? How long would it take you to get sick and tired of it, and to want to just hide in your room and never come out again?

So I realize this conversation has swayed all over the map in terms of severity, and when does, "Hello," just mean, "Hello," and when is it annoying, but I'd say a good rule is, "If you HAD to respond to every greeting to everyone who passed you, would you think that was a good thing?"

And that explains a lot of the urban-vs-rural arguments going on here, too.

Oops. 9 minutes are up, and then some...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:

I'm hoping I can get Don Juan de Doodlebug to use the term "liberal feminists" one more time.

What happened Don, did a feminist steal your bike or something?

No. A liberal feminist hasn't stolen my bike. If you'd read my posts, you'd see exactly what the liberal feminists did: they made a racist video to raise funds for their anti-sexual harassment cause.

301 to 350 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Street Harassment All Messageboards