Catcalling -- creepy or a compliment?

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Response

Mod Hat — Response (last one)

Basically, every post you linked to was a response to Michael. If you haven't noticed, Michael has been getting a little annoying lately.

No, actually I hadn't. Then again, "annoying" is a subjective measure. For instance, I could easily consider you more than a little annoying. And some days you are. From a sympathetic point of view, I would suggest better subtlety; don't be so deliberate about it, and incorporate your tantrums into on-topic posts.

 

[Tiassa]

The right to harass?

Okay, just to try to put the discussion back toward its topic, while I was typing away in green ink, a couple of teenage girls nearly got into a fight outside my place. Should I have thrown them the bottle of corn oil and told them to get naked?

Now, colloquially, the answer is obvious. But how would two men about to brawl respond if I handed them a tub of Cozy Shack® tapioca pudding and told them to strip down?

And no, I don't know if the girls were hot.

My point being that men, especially, have a hard time comprehending the proposition that people ought to be able to go about their lives without everything being an occasion for sexualization.

It's harassment. It's unkind. And, frankly, I don't understand this call to respect the rights of people to go out of their way to be rude to one another for no good reason.

 

[lepustimidus]

Are you claiming that men encourage women to fight for their sexual pleasure? WTF?

In every fight I have seen between two women, men intervene to break it up, often while putting themselves at risk. Maybe where you come from, the people are more depraved.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

I really cannot comprehend the women who get an "ego boost" from being reduced to a sex object by complete strangers.

For the most part I don't feel like I have been made into an "object". Most of the comments I get I consider very foward flirting. Like complete strangers coming up to me and saying " You're really pretty". Of course there are the guys who shout "nice ass" or something similar. I don't find the outburst appealling, but deep inside it makes me feel more confident because I know that some guys find me attractive. Even if I don't respond to the men who are talking to me and their comments annoy me. I usually still get the same ego boost deep down in my subconcious.

 

[EmmZ]

Of course men encourage women to fight for their sexual pleasure. Women fighting, especially where mud is involved, is seen as one of the great sexual cliches of the modern world. It's not geographically specific either. Most western men actually pay to see women fight. Nay, as I write this Thai boxing comes to mind and I'm compulsed to revoke my statement of it being just western men. It astounds me how blind people are to what's is beyond the apparently obvious, or indeed what is outside their usual line of sight. Don't people look into their peripheral scope anymore? Or did they never and I'm deluding myself in my thinking yet again?

 

[Tiassa]

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Please try again.

Are you claiming that men encourage women to fight for their sexual pleasure? WTF?

Nope. Try again. Or just highlight the blank space below:

The point, sir, is that people ought to be able to get into a fight without inspiring a sexual proposition. I'm not sure what was so confusing about the sentence, "My point being that men, especially, have a hard time comprehending the proposition that people ought to be able to go about their lives without everything being an occasion for sexualization." Perhaps you're proving my point?​

 

[lepustimidus]

Tiassa:

My point being that men, especially, have a hard time comprehending the proposition that people ought to be able to go about their lives without everything being an occasion for sexualization.

Why can't you just say: "Men sexualise fights between women"? Is it really that hard for you to be concise?

But no, I don't agree with you on that score. If the 'male collective' got such sexual pleasure from seeing two women fight, I wouldn't have seen numerous fights between females broken up by guys. And yeah, I've seen Seinfeld, in case you're wondering, and I don't consider that show an accurate depiction of real life.

To put it simply, don't project your own depravity on other males.

Emmz:

Of course men encourage women to fight for their sexual pleasure. Women fighting, especially where mud is involved, is seen as one of the great sexual cliches of the modern world.

Context, context. Watching mud or oil wrestling (which we all know is just play) may be sexually arousing to some males. Personally, it's not my bag.

However, I've yet to see a guy get turned on by two women in a street fight, who are pulling hair and gouging eyes. That sort of stuff is usually broken up.

 

[Tiassa]

The problem with your dishonesty ....

Why can't you just say: "Men sexualise fights between women"? Is it really that hard for you to be concise?

Because that would not communicate the same points. I would ask if it's really so hard for you to comprehend, but the condensation you've offered pretty much answers the question.

If the 'male collective' got such sexual pleasure from seeing two women fight, I wouldn't have seen numerous fights between females broken up by guys.

Would you pretend that any behavior is uniform among humans?

And yeah, I've seen Seinfeld, in case you're wondering, and I don't consider that show an accurate depiction of real life.

Seinfeld? What the hell does Seinfeld have to do with anything?

To put it simply, don't project your own depravity on other males.

Okay, whatever. Keep on projecting whatever imaginary sainthood that is onto people if you want.

Don't give me some two-bit self-righteous empty theory that pretends what I can witness with my own eyes doesn't exist.

Seriously, if you're the kind of guy who breaks up "catfights" just as you break up fights between men, well and fine. In fact, congratulations on announcing your civilized side for once.

We'll erect an obelisk in your honor to mark the occasion.

 

[lepustimidus]

Because that would not communicate the same points.

Well, it would have, actually. But never mind, Tiassa. Keep waffling, it's what you do best.

Would you pretend that any behavior is uniform among humans?

You're the one attempting to pain an entire gender with a broad brush. In case you've forgotten:

My point being that men, especially, have a hard time comprehending the proposition that people ought to be able to go about their lives without everything being an occasion for sexualization.

The above is not only a bullshit generalisation, it's also incredibly sexist. I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that you haven't even met 0.001% of the world's men, so you're not qualified to make the above comment.

Seriously, if you're the kind of guy who breaks up "catfights" just as you break up fights between men, well and fine. In fact, congratulations on announcing your civilized side for once.

I don't remember saying that. You really need to learn to type less, and read more.

What I did say was that every time I had observed a fight between two females, a male broke it up. They certainly weren't jerking off.

We'll erect an obelisk in your honor to mark the occasion.

See? More unnecessary waffle on your behalf.

 

[Tiassa]

(Sigh)

You're the one attempting to pain an entire gender with a broad brush. In case you've forgotten ....

.... The above is not only a bullshit generalisation, it's also incredibly sexist. I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that you haven't even met 0.001% of the world's men, so you're not qualified to make the above comment.

Speaking of bullshit?

You should try reading some history. Throw in a little bit of anthropology. Take a look around at our phallocentric nature.

Here's an interesting myth: If you are a man who has AIDS, you will be cured if you have sex with a virgin female.

Seriously. What the hell kind of superstition is that?

There is an arguable thesis out there purporting that religions were generally gynocentric and matriarchal until men figured out they had a role in the reproductive process.

Do you know any psychologists? Ask them about how much time the average male spends thinking about sex.

Consider a British comedian's explanation of the effect of a car on the sexual revolution. How exactly do we look at "an object eight foot by six foot, with a dividing wall between front and back, a stick poking up in the middle of the front section, and the top half almost entirely made of glass and think, God! We can have sex in that!"

I don't remember saying that. You really need to learn to type less, and read more.

What I did say was that every time I had observed a fight between two females, a male broke it up. They certainly weren't jerking off.

I was trying to give you some credit. My bad.

So, anyway, what were you doing, then?

One of the things you're overlooking in your zeal is that there is a difference between what you're complaining about and what you're comparing it to. That men should have a hard time understanding doesn't mean they don't. It means they have to learn. Perhaps in the future it would behoove you to think twice—or, as such, even once—before pitching a fit.

 

[Spud Emperor]

Did I just get censured?

 

[Tiassa]

Not that I can see, but still ....

In what way?

 

[lepustimidus]

Speaking of bullshit?

You should try reading some history. Throw in a little bit of anthropology. Take a look around at our phallocentric nature.

[snip]

OK, I just skimmed over the above. Usual waffle, something about history and quotes by a comedian. Not worth my time.

One of the things you're overlooking in your zeal is that there is a difference between what you're complaining about and what you're comparing it to. That men should have a hard time understanding doesn't mean they don't. It means they have to learn.

I repeat:

Would you pretend that any behavior is uniform among humans?

I must say, you're one of the biggest sexists I've had the displeasure of meeting.

Perhaps in the future it would behoove you to think twice—or, as such, even once—before pitching a fit.

Your typical method of operation:

1. Post waffle laced with condescension.

2. When someone disagree, accuse them of being dishonest, or throwing a tantrum.

Even you can do better than this, Tiassa.

But you can rest easy. At least you're beating me on the word count.

 

[lepustimidus]

Tiassa, if you can conclusively demonstrate the validity of this statement:

"Men, especially, have a hard time comprehending the proposition that people ought to be able to go about their lives without everything being an occasion for sexualization."

I'll eat my hat.

 

[Orleander]

So catcalling and how women feel about it isn't about women at all? Its about men?

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

OK, I just skimmed over the above. Usual waffle, something about history and quotes by a comedian. Not worth my time.

Not worth your time to what? Apparently it was worth your time to respond.

I repeat

What? What do you repeat? A question I've asked you that you refuse to answer?

I must say, you're one of the biggest sexists I've had the displeasure of meeting.

A bit of a non-sequitur, it seems. But then again, if you took the time to express the connections, you wouldn't sound so desperate and ignorant.

1. Post waffle laced with condescension.

2. When someone disagree, accuse them of being dishonest, or throwing a tantrum.

Easy enough:

(1) Okay, see, here's the thing about waffles: You seem to be using some obscure local slang, which is fine. But the American slang definition doesn't work, since it would accuse me of wavering back and forth on whether or not catcalling is harassment.

(2) Look for instance at one of the sections of your post: "I must say, you're one of the biggest sexists I've had the displeasure of meeting." Had you actually attempted to show what this argument means, it would be something more than a half-witted tantrum. But when your behavior is observably centered around looking for a fight with people you don't like, that's all people are going to be seeing until you give them something more to work with. In the meantime, you need to learn that it's not about simple disagreement. Plenty of people around here are dishonest in their arguments, pitch regular fits when they don't get their way. And you're one of them. It's what you give us to work with.​

Even you can do better than this, Tiassa.

Then give me something better to work with. I'd much rather discuss the topic, but you'd rather make this about us.

But you can rest easy. At least you're beating me on the word count.

Evidence of your bitter pursuit, since you're known on the one hand to complain that I'm posting too many words (oh! poor you!) while, to the other, demanding more complicated explanations than you're willing to read.

I don't know if you actually think you're being smart or what, but nobody's falling for it.

Tiassa, if you can conclusively demonstrate the validity of this statement:

"Men, especially, have a hard time comprehending the proposition that people ought to be able to go about their lives without everything being an occasion for sexualization."

I'll eat my hat.

Here, let's try to do this part as simply as possible, lest you cry some more:

(1) I don't care about your hat one way or another.

(2) The explanation you seek is probably too long for you to read, given your complaint in #287.

(3) Given that you complain about the number of words I use, the least you could do is be more specific. What, do you want a general thesis covering the whole history of the world? Start generally. The AIDS-virgin cure myth? The rise of phallocentric, patriarchal religious and social structures? Sex in a car? What of these do you have a problem with? That would be a start; we could then clarify examples within a theme. Do you object to psychological survey statistics and analysis?

(4) I would ask that you stop and consider just about any statement of issues concerning heterosexual intercourse among humans that you come across in the context that, evolutionarily, delivery of seed is the only reason men exist. Think about that. Even as an XY, your initial development in utero is as a female.

(4a) One of the things this fact does is change the context in which we view certain behaviors. Indeed, the world in men's hands is sexualized. And this reality does mitigate in certain ways the impact of the mere fact that certain behaviors exist. But it does not serve to excuse such behavior save for certain exceptionally rare circumstances.​

(5) Would you care to set a word limit should I decide to pander to your bad faith? How long of an explanation before you stop reading?​

Lepus, if you actually bothered to contribute to this discussion, you would find two primary effects, both of which most people would consider positive. First, you would give people more to work with so that they could actually attempt to communicate with you instead of just going through the motions of responding to your latest hack job. Additionally, you would find people kindlier disposed to your dissent or disagreement. When all you can give are half-witted assertions of opinion that disdain any possibility of communicating a genuine dissatisfaction, people are less inclined to take you seriously.

 

[lepustimidus]

Tiassa, if you can conclusively demonstrate the validity of this statement:

"Men, especially, have a hard time comprehending the proposition that people ought to be able to go about their lives without everything being an occasion for sexualization."

I'll eat my hat.

Just in case you've forgotten, Tiassa.

Please, be concise.

 

[Tiassa]

Keep crying—"Waah! Waaaah!"—because we hear you. We do. We just don't care, Lepus.

Just in case you've forgotten, Tiassa.

Please, be concise.

Just in case you've forgotten, Lepus: contribute to the topic. Be useful.

Anyway, since it is too much to ask that you should be decent enough to answer a couple of really simple questions that will help me accommodate your special needs, I'll take some time while I'm away at Sasquatch to figure out if I can explain it with few enough syllables and words for you to understand.

In the meantime, try actually reading the discussion and posting something about that instead of continuing your altogether too-creepy obsession with li'l me.

 

[lepustimidus]

Just in case you've forgotten, Lepus: contribute to the topic. Be useful.

Anyway, since it is too much to ask that you should be decent enough to answer a couple of really simple questions that will help me accommodate your special needs, I'll take some time while I'm away at Sasquatch to figure out if I can explain it with few enough syllables and words for you to understand.

In the meantime, try actually reading the discussion and posting something about that instead of continuing your altogether too-creepy obsession with li'l me.

Obsession? Is your ego actually that bloated? :bugeye: