guy who played cliff huxtable on tv

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
By now you probably have seen or at least have heard of the viral video capturing 108 catcalls to a woman silently walking the streets of NYC. If you haven’t yet, you definitely should! Each of the comments from the strangers is a catcall – a comment that objectifies and sexualizes a woman. That includes seemingly polite statements such as „smile” and „hello”.
So I'm objectifying and sexualizing women if I say hello to them? How are you going to meet new people then, if that is off limits :eek:
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
The problem with terms like "femi-nazi" is that they nearly always have an absence of definition from the person using them. Rush Limbaugh, who frequently used the word, is a perfect example. Of course that guy is just a gasbag deeper in the bowls of humanity than anyone on this forum could ever fall to, but I think I made my point.
Yep. you did. :)
And yet the great DE Burt Grossman was (is?) a fan of him. And then he wrote a book :rolleyes:
Imagine I read it trou-out. And further imagine, he made some points! One of his favo parts was ACLU and how they "successfully" twisted reality. He was the first I ever heard calling them with an agenda against common sense and humanity what they are: "Femi-Nazis". Later on, some US courts themselves called them (ACLU) a "nazi like regime". Their shield? "Feminism". As I said more than once: A slap into the face of truly abused women who really fight for their human rights.
We have such groups like that in Germany. They all are hell to freedom, democracy, and human rights. Their leader, Alice Schwarzer, just lately got exposed as a big time tax evader. Yet she played the high morale role for so-called "feminists" for decades, and was the first to call to "hang" Kachelmann, without any evidence, as a rapist. What a disgusting "woman". And as usual, non-themselves-thinking weak women felt into her trap & applauded her. That´s the evil (in this cases female) persons I call Femi-Nazis... And I guess Grossman had the same in mind...

Alpe d'Huez said:
The issue with the "politics" (which should be defined also in this context I suppose), is that while the act of violence against women isn't political in itself, if you open up any website, newspaper, etc. on this issue, it won't take long before you find someone using the issue as a political wedge for one angle or agenda or another, which is sad I think, but true.
100% agree. That´s what I tried to get over here in two threads in something like two weeks. What did I got in return? Personal attacks (by those who shouted out the loudest), instead of disscusions about the matter.

Netserk said:
So I'm objectifying and sexualizing women if I say hello to them? How are you going to meet new people then, if that is off limits :eek:
How about not to talk to them at all, and keep your head low in full shame? May some beautiful woman feels sorry and talks to you then. ;)
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
It was their mistake to get drunk and lose self control beyond help. If they got a traumata the next day? Their mistake.
I know this comment was in reference to the concert goers, but this is such an ignorant and stupid statement/view.

A friend of mine's 13yo niece was given alcohol constantly by 3 14yo "boys" who then each raped her. She never knew because she was so drunk, but found out later when then boys were bragging about what they'd done to her.

Her mistake, you say??
Nothing to do with the boy's behaviour/attitude at all??

:rolleyes:
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Archibald said:
I know this comment was in reference to the concert goers, but this is such an ignorant and stupid statement/view.

A friend of mine's 13yo niece was given alcohol constantly by 3 14yo "boys" who then each raped her. She never knew because she was so drunk, but found out later when then boys were bragging about what they'd done to her.

Her mistake, you say??
Nothing to do with the boy's behaviour/attitude at all??

:rolleyes:
You, I, and eveybody else who read "my post in question" (and saw the linked concert from the time it got out of hand) knows this sad story you tell, and what happened at the great WOA 2014 have absolutely nothing in common. So what is the purpose of your post? :confused:
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
godwin's law once again proved in this thread. if it continues any further it is in danger of treading into reductio ad hitlerum territory.

a corollary to the above is the cacas-iactis simia law, which basically states that is is futile to engage in a discussion with those given to use hyperbole as fact.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
And now if you would be kind enough to translate the latin of your post into english, it simply would be great for everybody to understand.
 
Archibald said:
I know this comment was in reference to the concert goers, but this is such an ignorant and stupid statement/view.

A friend of mine's 13yo niece was given alcohol constantly by 3 14yo "boys" who then each raped her. She never knew because she was so drunk, but found out later when then boys were bragging about what they'd done to her.

Her mistake, you say??
Nothing to do with the boy's behaviour/attitude at all??

:rolleyes:
This horrific story you are describing is completely different from women who decide to drink from their own volition.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
You, I, and eveybody else who read "my post in question" (and saw the linked concert from the time it got out of hand) knows this sad story you tell, and what happened at the great WOA 2014 have absolutely nothing in common. So what is the purpose of your post? :confused:
Jspear said:
This horrific story you are describing is completely different from women who decide to drink from their own volition.
It is not about whether the drinking is voluntary or not - it is more about the attitude that it is okay to take advantage of drunken women. To then claim that it is "their mistake", is akin to the "they were asking for it" defence for rapists...
"She was drinking and therefore it's okay to take advantage of her" is not a valid reason to molest/rape women - period.

It's unfortunate, but boys and men are not taught that this sort of behaviour is wrong. Think of all the teenage boys and young impressionable men who will take that band's behaviour as acceptable... This is why MI made the comment that it's worse for happening in front of millions of viewers...

Jspear, the girl in question was drinking voluntarily... no funnelling, just peer group pressure to drink more.
 
Netserk said:
So I'm objectifying and sexualizing women if I say hello to them? How are you going to meet new people then, if that is off limits :eek:
If you only say hello to women, pretty women, then yes.

Let's be honest here, if you're just passing by, on your way to work or the supermarket, and you say "hello" to a pretty woman you've just spotted, you're not trying to meet new people :eek:

Men don't know what it feels like, being called names on every corner of the street. Once you are familiar with that feeling, you'll realize that a simple "hello" or "smile" can be very uncomfortable too.
 
LaFlorecita said:
If you only say hello to women, pretty women, then yes.

Let's be honest here, if you're just passing by, on your way to work or the supermarket, and you say "hello" to a pretty woman you've just spotted, you're not trying to meet new people :eek:

Men don't know what it feels like, being called names on every corner of the street. Once you are familiar with that feeling, you'll realize that a simple "hello" or "smile" can be very uncomfortable too.
I'm glad you said this. The point is obvious to me, but I really think it isn’t for a lot of men. Men should just ask themselves, do they say hello to strange men that they pass on the street? A few do, and those men may also say hello to women without it’s meaning anything more. Some people are just friendly to strangers. But men who say hello only to women are pretty obviously coming on to them.

That said, I think Netserk has a point. Good-looking women are more likely to have men come on to them, not just in situations where meeting them may be out of the question, but in times and places where meeting them is possible.

E.g., what about inside the supermarket? What if a man approaches a woman there and tries to talk to her? She may resent it, but I think men have to be allowed to do this without it’s being considered harassment. If the woman bluntly says, I’m not interested in talking to you, and the man won’t take the hint and move away, the situation changes, but the initial approach, IMO, can’t be considered out of bounds. Men have to be allowed to try. I know the internet has changed the dating scene considerably, that approaches, from both sides, can be made behind a protective layer, so to speak, but in my view nothing yet completely replaces seeing someone in the real.

I’m sure there are many women who are approached a lot in this manner, and wish they weren’t. They may feel it's unfair that they can never go anywhere without suffering the unwanted attentions of men. But in the first place, many such women may be available, and may in fact meet someone of interest this way. And even if they aren't available, or never meet anyone of interest, they should keep in mind that there are plenty of women who are dying to meet a man and may never get approached in this manner.

IMO, it sort of balances out. The women who get lots of opportunities have to pay for it by being bothered more than they like. The women who go through life without being bothered may have the downside of struggling constantly to find someone they want to be with.

Beyond this, I think there is a very fine line we’re walking on here. There are many times when an aggressive approach, a refusal to give up, is rewarded. E.g., someone may be turned down for a job, but s/he refuses to take no for an answer, continues to try to convince the employers to change their mind, and may be rewarded with getting the job. And the employers may come to realize their initial impressions were mistaken, and be glad the person was persistent.

It’s really quite natural for men to carry over this attitude to courtship. Just because a woman rejects a man upon meeting him briefly doesn’t mean she might not change her mind if she got to know him better. A man may genuinely feel the only way the woman is going to see enough of him to make a fair judgment is if he persists in trying to meet her. I understand how easily this process can be abused, but IMO it’s hard to blame a man for making a persistent effort. I guess the issue is that he has to be as polite and empathic as possible.

***********************

Back to Foxxy’s point about men falsely accused. In that article that I mentioned that was linked within Foxxy’s link, they did find that a lot of women did falsely accuse men of rape or harassment. But as I also noted, a lot of women did not identify any particular man, and those who did all confessed early enough in the investigative process that the man wasn’t subject to any legal problems. It’s still an open question to me how often this happens. There are incidents, sure, but the question is, how do you weigh them vs. the very large number of genuine rapes? I would need to see more data.

I think there’s some parallel to anti-doping efforts here. We try to minimize the number of false positives, but you can’t catch any dopers unless you have a criterion that is low enough to occasionally threaten a false positive. In the same way, men falsely accused of rape are the false positives of anti-rape efforts. We have to minimize this number, but it’s probably unrealistic to think we can flat-out eliminate it. If you change the environment to encourage women to report genuine rapes, you're also going to encourage women who want to use a false accusation as a weapon against some man they for some reason want to hurt. The easier it is to get society to take genuine rape accusations seriously, the easier it is for false accusations to be taken seriously.
 
The way I see it, it depends on the context. A woman just minding her own business doing day-to-day activities in a context that isn't social, such as walking down the street, should not need to suffer through that. A woman in a pub or at a party is in a completely different context, with a completely different mindset where she's open to and ready for social interactions, so she won't usually mind unless the other person can't take a hint if she's not interested. In between there's a blurry continuum, and yes, the line between appropriate and inappropriate is very thin. But being aware of the issue and trying not to approach women in inappropriate situations can only be a good thing, even if you make the wrong call here and there.
 
One of the things I like the most about riding my bike is to nod/smile/say hello/get eye contact with others as I pass by. I'm living on a farm and ride on small roads, so it's not like I see others every 100m. I do this to kids, old women and men, people on my own age and yes beautiful women as well. Often I get a nod or smile back and it makes me a little happier than I was before, so I keep doing it. Sometimes I ride by some I have done so several times before with and I see that they remember me and sometimes initiate nodding/smiling first. I think that is wonderful. I have experienced to then meet someone in another context where we have exchanged nods/smiles before and it has made it easier to open up and talk to them. I by far prefer that to everyone being in their own bubble when going on the street.

IF some of the (beautiful) women found this harassing, it wouldn't stop me. It's not like I can read their minds to see if they would appreciate it beforehand. If we're going to stop all behaviour that a minority might find offensive, we would have little left to do in the public domain.

Edit: It's most often on the bike, but it's not restricted to that. Same things happens on a bus stop, or other situations in the public domain.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
i dont quite understand where this thread has gone...decided to chime in and only once. not denying at all good reasons for a defensive gender reaction, but my perspective is largely cultural.

depending on where they are from, and setting a clearly inappropriate behavior aside, both man and, yes, women react quite differently to the various signs of random attention, wink, complements etc

(i just deleted a longish expose about the experience of my 5 sisters who matured in 5 different countries...)

the bottom line is that a woman in nyc will respond differently from women in midwest...north italy...south france...if either gender keeps one's cool and the sense of proportion, there is no need for dramatics.

the problem is that the society has decidedly moved to over-emphasizing
and elevating gender separation lines, sometimes imaginary sometimes real, into calamities. a human culture stressing our commonalities over gender differences is getting lost.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Archibald said:
It is not about whether the drinking is voluntary or not - it is more about the attitude that it is okay to take advantage of drunken women. To then claim that it is "their mistake", is akin to the "they were asking for it" defence for rapists...
"She was drinking and therefore it's okay to take advantage of her" is not a valid reason to molest/rape women - period.
Did you see the (concert) Video I linked? It´s important to know before I can show you why there happened nothing illegally. All what happened was women embarrasing themselves in public because of being intoxicated. They can´t blame anybody but themselves.

Then I just used this as an example of how easily such happenings could have turned into wrong accusations* (if one or more women changed their mind the next day and report a "crime", because they need to shift blame), if there were no witnesses, that are possible now since this hotchpotch rules where invented into law in Canada (& Sweden AFIK, and certainly soon in the whole of Europe).
In one of Pythons links a Minister "manned up" and said it was a mistake. Then the (sorry to use that again) Femi-Nazis groups got out of their holes and cried foul play. Since they have powerful influence, the law won´t be changed back to clear cut rules. That is the sad story about that.

* Or the extreme other way: One woman may have liked it so much to be together with a singer, boasting about it the other day, and make the story bigger than it was (again imagine if it did not happen with witnesses). Like adding they had a crazy night together while actually nothing happened but some kissing and Sagan-like-touching.
It´s all up to how the woman sees the events that occured. It´s all up to subjective interpretation if the men involved are hailed or dumped.

I hope I clarfied that now: I just wanted to give a real life example how easy manipulations can be made.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Archibald said:
It's unfortunate, but boys and men are not taught that this sort of behaviour is wrong. Think of all the teenage boys and young impressionable men who will take that band's behaviour as acceptable... This is why MI made the comment that it's worse for happening in front of millions of viewers...
What did the band do? They pranked the 80s "hair metal music". It was/is satire.
Wayyy more dangerous for young people is the easy access to pornographic material in the internet, half-naked videos of Beyonce looking and behaving like a hooker (with the sole intention to add more millions to her über-millions she already screwed out of her fans), disgusting rap songs, commercial models with anorexia, win-at-all-cost behaviour and greed advertised as a good thing.
Finally: That was the only band on WOA that was doing something different, the rest was pretty much about beer and a whole lot of great music...
 
Netserk said:
One of the things I like the most about riding my bike is to nod/smile/say hello/get eye contact with others as I pass by. I'm living on a farm and ride on small roads, so it's not like I see others every 100m. I do this to kids, old women and men, people on my own age and yes beautiful women as well. Often I get a nod or smile back and it makes me a little happier than I was before, so I keep doing it. Sometimes I ride by some I have done so several times before with and I see that they remember me and sometimes initiate nodding/smiling first. I think that is wonderful. I have experienced to then meet someone in another context where we have exchanged nods/smiles before and it has made it easier to open up and talk to them. I by far prefer that to everyone being in their own bubble when going on the street.

IF some of the (beautiful) women found this harassing, it wouldn't stop me. It's not like I can read their minds to see if they would appreciate it beforehand. If we're going to stop all behaviour that a minority might find offensive, we would have little left to do in the public domain.

Edit: It's most often on the bike, but it's not restricted to that. Same things happens on a bus stop, or other situations in the public domain.
That is just weird imo, but hey, I'm not going to judge you.

Remember though that what you describe here is not what women consider uncomfortable and embarrassing. If someone would nod/smile at me, I'd think "well weird" but still return the greeting. If someone said "hello!" in a normal way I'd think "is that someone I know" and hesitantly reply "uhm hi"

However, if someone would say "hello", "hey lady", make kissing sounds and check me out, I'd be creeped out and embarrassed and if it happens 5,6,7 times a day, I'll snap at some point and tell the person to "**** off" or "get lost".

I think the main issue here is that many men don't know the feeling of humiliation this could cause for a woman. These men think what they say is a compliment, which it would be, if they were the first person on the planet of the earth to do it. It all adds up and at some point even a simple "hello" can be uncomfortable.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
I stummbled over the following article from the comments section, after reading a german newspaper which announced that another famous German got acquitted of wrongly accused rape today/yesterday (depending on time zones)...

Here we go:

Wow... In the Washington Post (I thought to be a more serious newspaper)... Kind of Speechless... What has the USA become (soon we in Germany will have to deal with all that too. Everything swaps over here.The good and the bad. Sooner or later)?... Once a country I truly admired:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/06/no-matter-what-jackie-said-we-should-automatically-believe-rape-claims/

"In last month’s deep and damning Rolling Stone report about sexual assault at the University of Virginia, a reporter told the story of “Jackie,” who said she was gang raped at a fraternity party and then essentially ignored by the administration. It helped dramatize what happens when the claims of victims are not taken seriously.

Now the narrative appears to be falling apart: Her rapist wasn’t in the frat that she says he was a member of; the house held no party on the night of the assault; and other details are wobbly. Many people (not least U-Va. administrators) will be tempted to see this as a reminder that officials, reporters and the general public should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases. This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players."

So far so (almost*) good.

* = But she intentionally "forgot" to write alleged sexual assault, alleged rapist(s), alleged assault & alleged rape cases. That just shows which drivel will come the rest of the way in her propaganda article to further brainwash US citizens into complete political corrected, gendermainstreamed, fearing working robots. It all goes on with:

"In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says." :eek:

Even more damning are the headlines showing that her intentions are clear from the beginning:
"No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims" (She could have as well written "Crystal Gail Mangum" instead of "Jackie")
"Incredulity hurts victims more than it hurts wrongly-accused perps**"
Wow. Alarming. Disgusting & dangerous opinions (since this comes from a lawyer :mad:)... When does the quiet majority of honest and fine Americans stand up? Where are the brave people that once built the USA? Is there anybody left? Where is the outrage? Why is this woman not instantly fired, in the land aka "hire &fire country"? :eek:

** = Important side note: That is a oxymoron. A wrongly accused can´t be a perp at the same time. And nobody at the Washington Post editorial team saw it, and edited it. What the heck is going on?


OTOH, if you guys are really interested into the truth please read the full long article by Robert Riversong. At least Merckxindex and Alpe, and some more fine members of this site will do (at least that´s my gut feeling given their posting history and interest in fully discover things). Thanks upfront. :)
It gives a great basis to really discuss the matters without bias.

http://riversong.wordpress.com/yellow-journalism-and-the-meme-of-rape-culture/

An important excerpt to debunk the "2(-8)%" myth further (which with no surprise Zerlina Maxwell used to "prove" her "points");

"Objective and conservative studies have shown a far higher proportion of documented false rape allegations: McDowell (Air Force, 1985) 27%, Buckley (DC, 1992) 24%, Kanin (small Midwestern town in which polygraphs were used, 1994) 41%, Kanin (two large Midwestern state universities) 50%."

More from the linked article:

Writer Lizzie Crocker (a woman to adimre; fair, blessed with common sense, and objective. The absolute opposite of dangerous Femi-Nazis like Zerlina Maxwell & Co.);

"Rolling Stone’s admission that its college rape story contained ‘discrepancies’ shows how victim-centric our culture has become – to the exclusion of asking vital questions.

And therein lies the problem: in valorizing Jackie’s trauma as a victim of rape (never mind that she was and remains an alleged victim), Rolling Stone ignored glaring holes in a story that was too good to check.

When journalists did scrutinize what they viewed as weak and one-sided reporting, they were met with accusations of victim-blaming. Some likened their skepticism of Erdely’s piece to police casting undeserved doubt on an alleged rape victim’s story.

"We live in a culture that valorizes victims – where to question one woman’s claims of sexual abuse is to be a “rape apologist”…

Question them, and you are colluding in exacerbating the awful effects of their trauma. Question their actions or motives and you are “victim shaming” and “victim blaming”.

“Playing the victim” used to be a term of scorn, now it’s a daily modus operandi to score any number of political and cultural points.

Question those taking on the mantle of victimhood and you are immediately cast as some kind of aggressive, unfeeling oppressor. The sad consequence of a culture of victimhood is that it obscures real victims and obscures the genuinely felt experiences of those victims, whatever they have endured."


Some of Robert Riversongs words on how those femi-nazis smeared the true feminists and women in general (inclusive true female victims);

"The sad and awful truth revealed in the undercurrents of the Rolling Stone tsunami is that a movement which began as a women’s liberation struggle for equal rights and recognition, sparked by Quaker abolitionists who believed that all were equal in God’s eyes – such as Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony – has devolved into an ideology of female victimization at the hands of men and patriarchy. Such an ideology, and the movement built around it, actually diminishes the status of women while vilifying the character of men, thereby militating against the kind of egalitarian and just community that the original feminists envisioned."
 
Netserk’s post is actually a good illustration of what Python said. That is, a great deal depends on culture, defined broadly. When you’re in a rural setting, with very few people on the road, it seems natural to say hello to people whom you do encounter. I don't find this weird at all, in fact, I frequently do this, too, in a sparsely populated area, though I never say hello to strangers I pass by in the city. There's a closeness people feel to each other in rural areas that is completely missing in the city, at least in the U.S.

Foxxy, that second link is really interesting. Very long, I haven’t read all of it, but beyond the fact that it appears the gang rape story was fabricated, I find very disturbing some women minimizing, and in one case actually defending, the effect of false accusations:

The accused would have a rough period. He might be suspended from his job; friends might defriend him on Facebook. In the case of Bill Cosby, we might have to stop watching his shows, consuming his books or buying tickets to his traveling stand-up routine. But false accusations are exceedingly rare, and errors can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly.
Back in the 1990s, a dean at Vassar College told Time magazine that a false accusation is not only an acceptable price to pay, but might even benefit the falsely accused: “[The wrongly accused] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”
I find that second quote very scary. Obviously, that same mentality could be applied to false accusations of any crime. Do I have the potential to rob a bank? Do i have the potential to murder someone? To give her the benefit of the doubt, I think she's referring to a growing process, just as some people who get cancer later say it benefited them. But that obviously wouldn't be a rationale for wishing cancer on anyone, or even, e.g., saying that occasional false positives in cancer diagnosis are a good thing.

Also, it turns out that the prize-winning journalist who wrote this later-retracted story in RS earlier in her career made the same mistake in a child molestation case. She wrote a story about a choir boy who accused several priests of raping him. It later turned out those charges were fabricated.

I’m also reminded of a pedophile case that came to light about the same time as the much more publicized Sandusky-Penn State affair. An assistant for the Syracuse basketball team was the subject of similar charges, and was forced to resign. I don’t know what became of that case, but I do recall reading about the boy, or one of the boys, making the charges, who was completely unbelievable.

Notice, though, that the woman “Jackie” never named any particular man. She claimed the rapists were members of a particular fraternity that was eventually publicized, but no member of his fraternity was specifically falsely accused. Again, going back to that other link, the Kanin Midwestern study that found a 40% rate of false accusations, it does seem that in a large proportion, no individual is indentified.

One of those links also claimed that only 3% of men accused of rape--fairly or not--go to prison. If this is true (?), the rate of imprisonment for false accusations is even lower. Of course, even one man imprisoned under false accusations is too much, but it makes me wonder how often this occurs.

Also, here is the FBI’s definition of rape:

Effective January 1, 2013, the FBI changed the definition of rape that is used in the collection of national crime statistics. The old definition was “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” The new definition of rape is: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Nice you found some time to read some parts. It´s really worth to read everything from start to end...

BTW, what you think about your country? How could it be possible that the likes of Zerlina Maxwell can be writers, and worse, lawyers? What happened?

When I was there (96 & 97), it was still ok (before it became kind of police state... ok, another matter...).
My friend & I was friendly "harrased" by the minute. Beautiful women on the streets (non-hookers, there was no such "offerings"), in Baseball stadiums, at rollercoaster parks, in pubs talked to us "out of the blue"...
Heck, even gay men "harrased" us out of the blue. Without all that "harrasement", I´d have missed some great times. I am thankful I was "harrassed". Especially by some gay men in Atlanta, because they corrected some reservations I had about them before... It ended in one heck of a night (without sex OFC, I am not into that. But I don´t judge people if they have gay sex or not). They "borrowed" ;) a golf cart (I don´t remember were they got it from, was a little too drunk). Then one of the men drove all of us trou the streets of a great Atlanta summer night, it was fun, we laughed and joked, and did just nonsense on the way, then we (my friend & I) went with them into a gay club (I was feared to hell, but still followed them, trusting my friend nothing will happen). As it turned out: Nothing bad happened. Great party going on, like in a normal pub... Just a little shocked to see all the guys walking upper-body free like in the movie "Cruising"...

IOW: I loved the openess of US citizens. I truly hope those femi nazi groups don´t fear anybody into behaving their ways. Let the freedom continue. Let the opposite of them get strong, so that this horrific episode of "femi-nazism" will be ending sooner than later...

Anyway, back to the more serious stuff:

The bolded part of what you quoted was the most disturping, absolutely shocking. Just imagine men would say something like that the other way around...

Merckx index said:
Also, it turns out that the prize-winning journalist who wrote this later-retracted story in RS earlier in her career made the same mistake in a child molestation case. She wrote a story about a choir boy who accused several priests of raping him. It later turned out those charges were fabricated.
He will later talk about that too. Somewhere at the end...


Merckx index said:
An assistant for the Syracuse basketball team was the subject of similar charges, and was forced to resign. I don’t know what became of that case, but I do recall reading about the boy, or one of the boys, making the charges, who was completely unbelievable.
We have such cases here too that make it to the press. Just imagine the countless unknown files...

Merckx index said:
One of those links also claimed that only 3% of men accused of rape--fairly or not--go to prison. If this is true (?), the rate of imprisonment for false accusations is even lower. Of course, even one man imprisoned under false accusations is too much, but it makes me wonder how often this occurs.
I don´t know how much of the wrongly accused go to prison. At least Kachelmann "made it" to year long custody. Türk actually was imprisoned, Dall got free without it today. That´s the three latest famous german cases I know of.
Whatever high the number is: Even without prison lifes are ruined, jobs are lost, reputations forever tainted, bank-accounts gone broke to pay attorneys... And the wrong accusers? Go scott-free. Never heard of a single file where a wrong accuser went to court, leave alone to prison. The wrong accusers have nothing to fear. Another reason (amongst those named in my previous link about this matter) why the number of wrong accusations is so shockingly high...
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Did you see the (concert) Video I linked? It´s important to know before I can show you why there happened nothing illegally. All what happened was women embarrasing themselves in public because of being intoxicated. They can´t blame anybody but themselves.

* Or the extreme other way: One woman may have liked it so much to be together with a singer, boasting about it the other day, and make the story bigger than it was (again imagine if it did not happen with witnesses). Like adding they had a crazy night together while actually nothing happened but some kissing and Sagan-like-touching.
It´s all up to how the woman sees the events that occured. It´s all up to subjective interpretation if the men involved are hailed or dumped.

I hope I clarfied that now: I just wanted to give a real life example how easy manipulations can be made.
Couldn't access the vid, but went by the proceeding comments about how the women were forced on stage and had to be "convinced" to. Along with various statements about the attention being "against their will".
If they were groupies, then fine, that's what they wanted. BUT, you stated clearly that they weren't and they were groped/molested against their will... The level of their intoxication is immaterial. You seem to be saying that if they're drinking, then it's okay - and that's just wrong, completely wrong. There are no grounds for non-consenting contact... ever.
The band targeted them - otherwise, why didn't they just pick another woman when the first one said no??

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
What did the band do? They pranked the 80s "hair metal music". It was/is satire.
Wayyy more dangerous for young people is the easy access to pornographic material in the internet, half-naked videos of Beyonce looking and behaving like a hooker (with the sole intention to add more millions to her über-millions she already screwed out of her fans), disgusting rap songs, commercial models with anorexia, win-at-all-cost behaviour and greed advertised as a good thing.
What did the band do? You said they performed "non-violent rape".
The band's fans will see that behaviour (IF it was unwanted by the women in question) as acceptable and likely immitate it. Are you sure everyone who saw it would call it as you see it?

porn is not an issue - rape/molestation of women has been around long before porn emerged. Admittedly, there may be varying degrees, but how common are rape/crush/snuff movies? There's more convenient excuse than actual influence/incitement under the "porn made me do it" banner.

As for Beyonce, well, sex sells. However, is she getting molested or raped in those videos? Exactly what part of her 'performance' is inciting others to rape/molest women?? Do tell...

LaFlorecita said:
That is just weird imo, but hey, I'm not going to judge you.

Remember though that what you describe here is not what women consider uncomfortable and embarrassing. If someone would nod/smile at me, I'd think "well weird" but still return the greeting. If someone said "hello!" in a normal way I'd think "is that someone I know" and hesitantly reply "uhm hi"

However, if someone would say "hello", "hey lady", make kissing sounds and check me out, I'd be creeped out and embarrassed and if it happens 5,6,7 times a day, I'll snap at some point and tell the person to "**** off" or "get lost".

I think the main issue here is that many men don't know the feeling of humiliation this could cause for a woman. These men think what they say is a compliment, which it would be, if they were the first person on the planet of the earth to do it. It all adds up and at some point even a simple "hello" can be uncomfortable.
I don't think Netserk's nod/hello is weird. I miss that now that I no longer live in Europe. It's simple acknowlegement and politeness.

As for the not knowing the feeling that a woman may feel from unwanted attention, I have had similar experience - I live in Sydney and daren't go out around mardi-gra time or anywhere near the areas involved (Fair Day, etc). Made that mistake on a few occasions - looks, comments, even **** grabs - they were all pretty forward. Granted many may well have been far less inhibited due to "chemical influences", but maybe not all. It certainly wasn't a comfortable experience. Even the missus was getting annoyed.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Archibald said:
Couldn't access the vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHK1gC6_9kQ

Is that one working? From circa 1.03.00 it gets out of hand.

Somehow it´s good you didn´t see the vid, but felt into a trap of pre bias.

After you see the vid, everything becomes clear:
While the women weren´t groupies, they got onto the stage half naked, touched & kissed by strangers, after losing all self-respect because of being drunk. They certainly would not have gone onto stage like that ifn´t drunk. So it was kind of against their will. You see; a little twist here and there, a non-assault/harrasement/you-name-it easily could become one if one of those women would have changed the whole story into shifting blame to others (when being sober again and ashamed of their previous actions), like to the the singer or the fan I mentioned, the next day or later. As I said: imagine there was no witnesses.

Beyonce?
http://www.clipfish.de/musikvideos/video/1566987/beyonce-green-light/

How you explain that to your 13 year old daughter? You know kids try to emulate their heroes...
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Archibald said:
What did the band do? You said they performed "non-violent rape".
I thought that was clear. Sorry for making it missunderstandable. I was in a grammar and nuances debate about non-violent/non-touching cases. It all got mixed up, climaxing into the Candaian definition of rape (which term they don´t use anymore). Basically I was mocking about how once clear laws became a hotchpotch law open to all kinds of manipulations & miss-understandings (and yet another reason for the shockinly high number of wrong accusations. It nowadays all depends on subjective POVs. It can be interpreted in all ways. At least in Canada and Sweden, very soon in more countries, ifn´t already).

Merckx was fooled (sorry), you were (sorry), and I don´t know who else (sorry too). But that´s what you get when people with wrong agendas and biases influence laws...
 
I'm going to assume you haven't spent any time reading the allegations of victims of Ghomeshi and Cosby.
The allegations come from many people from a broad demographic. None of whom have anything to gain from claiming they were raped or choked or punched without their consent. In fact, they become exposed to feedback from people like you. No wonder so many sex crimes go unreported.
False claims of rape are extremely rare. Look it up. Also, rape victims have a hell of a hard time winning cases in the court of law, for reasons you have inadvertently already stated.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
the delgados said:
I'm going to assume you haven't spent any time reading the allegations of victims of Ghomeshi and Cosby.
Your assumption is completely wrong. More than once I said I think Cosby is a guilty ****. The first time with my very first post in the original thread.
But the discussion about him was dead looonnnnngggggg after I joined. Everything was said and done, thus some of us went further, and discussed the issues of wrongly accused in general, and in a short side-track about ruined reputations whose names got smeared in the wake of the Cosby story.
That is that.

the delgados said:
The allegations come from many people from a broad demographic. None of whom have anything to gain from claiming they were raped or choked or punched without their consent.
I never disputed that.
That is that.

the delgados said:
Look it up.
Actually that is what I did. I'm going to assume... skip that... I am sure you haven't spent any time reading the links Merckx, Python and I posted. Otherwise you would not have said this:

the delgados said:
False claims of rape are extremely rare.
the delgados said:
Also, rape victims have a hell of a hard time winning cases in the court of law
That is your opinion....

I OTOH just saw the tip of the ice-berg of wrongly accused ending in prison (the famous cases I named, then wondering how many go behind bars who can´t afford expensive lawyers or don´t have the public to help them). Thus common sense tells me that the rate of winning cases is wayyy higher for the indeed raped and/or abused women. And that is my opinion*.

* Soon becoming hard facts. I once posted (in another thread, the disabled athlete thread I think) that in Japan 99%, in Germany 90+%, and in the USA 80+% of cases coming to court end up with convictions. I hope I find the link soon within a week or so...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts