Power, Purity, Meekness and God. The Ugly Reality of Rape Culture.

[James R]

tali89:

No. After all, it's not unheard of for a woman to lash out when her sexual advance is rejected, hence the phrase 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'.

That's not what happened in the case you are ostensibly discussing, so why do you think that is relevant?

Why do some women react with violence when they are rejected or broken up with?

Largely the same reasons as men, although men do it far more often than women.

Notice that, again, this has nothing to do with the particular incident under discussion.

Female privilege? Or do we just assume that certain individuals (both male and female) have personality flaws that prevent them from handling rejection well?

I think it's safe to assume that, though I'm not sure whether it is a personality flaw. Nobody likes rejection. Most people manage to get over it without violence. Apparently, not the guy in the incident you are ostensibly discussing. I'd say he has some issues.

By the way, I recall a thread I started recently where I posted a news article about male waiters having to change their kilts to pants in order to avoid molestation by female patrons.

You want to re-open that discussion?

Ok. Here's a link to the thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sexual-harassment.152471/

It took a while, but you couldn't leave it alone, could you? I suggest we continue in the original thread. I wonder how long it will take you to run away again, this time.

I asked the audience here about why these women behaved in such a fashion, and only one person responded. That individual stated that alcohol was the likely cause. I didn't find such an explanation tenable, as it's quite a stretch to say that all of the women in question were drunk, and not all drunk people engaged in sexual harassment. When pressed, he admitted that the situation was 'complex', although he didn't divulge what others causes might contribute to sexual harassment perpetrated by women. So I'm rather curious as to why alcohol hasn't been mentioned as a contributing factor in this case?

The thread is available for everybody to read. I urge everybody to read the actual thread, linked above, rather than tali89's summary of it. His view is, let us say, just a little biased. In the thread, tali89 provides an excellent demonstration of his own hypocrisy on these issues.

I'm always more than happy to address points raised by posters (time permitting), if they are relevant, coherent, and not based on raw emotion.

Hehe. We all know that's not true. You ran away from the other thread. I'm guessing that you'll be re-thinking your decision to re-engage with it in the very near future. Probably you'll run away again almost immediately.

I started the sexual harassment thread with the purpose of analyzing why certain women engaged in sexual harassment ...

And it was concluded, on the basis of your own expressed views that sexual harassment perpetrated by men against women isn't an issue. This is because, according to you, men get over it in about an hour or so after it happens.

Again, I invite anybody who is interested to read the thread, linked above.

Unfortunately I'm seeing this entire pattern all over again on this thread. I asked you to substantiate some vague claims you made, and you instead attempted to misrepresent me as supporting the behavior exhibited by the officer. I mean, is it even worth continuing our discussion at this point, when you won't even back up what should be easily supportable claims? If the moderation here was responsible and fair minded, they'd compel you to support your claims and censure you for misrepresenting me, but we both know that won't happen.

Looks like you're about to run away from this thread too. That would be consistent with past behaviour. I wonder how long it will be before you raise an issue of "men's rights" again? Not very long, I'd guess, because by all indications you're fairly obsessed about the topic. Maybe you should tell us your story.

 

[James R]

wellwisher:

Sexual inducement should be part of the sexual harrassment equation. This point is where liberalism tends to use the dual standard.

"Liberalism" is a vague term. What exactly are you talking about, in the present context?

If I said a derogatory remark to someone, and they got angry and acted, we would not fixate on their anger. We would say that person was induced to anger by me using a taboo PC trigger.

If you said a derogatory remark, and they pulled a gun on you and shot the wall next to you, I don't think that most people would excuse that action on the basis that they were induced to anger because you used a "taboo PC trigger". People are ultimately responsible for their actions, even when provoked. Do you agree?

Where I live, there used to be a (partial) legal defence of "provocation" to the charge of murder. That defence was removed by legislation, and for good reason in my opinion.

This will be caused by a trigger. For example, this may be due to a passive male, who is not seen as threatening, and who may appear to need/want to be dominated or schooled. The female becomes compelled to dominate.

What compels the female to dominate?

She may assume all guys like sex and therefore the ends will justify her means. Guys can't always assume girls want sex, however many assume once they get started, the lady see how good he is, the ends will justify the means.

You are making a lot of generalisations here. I do not think they are supported by evidence. Is all this just your opinion, or do you actually have some evidence to support your claims?

In culture, dressing like a hooker is considered acceptable due to marketing.

There's a lot to unpack there. First, there's the question of which culture you're referring to. Second, you haven't specified what "dressing like a hooker" actually involves. Third, you haven't explained how "marketing" of this influences the "culture" you're referring to. Fourth, it is not clear who is doing the marketing, or why, or what kind of marketing you're talking about.

This uniform will give women certain advantages in terms of dealing with men, since many men become 1-D.

What does it mean for a man to become 1-D? Are men like robots who shift to a different mode of behaviour when faced with a woman who is dressed like a hooker?

Even so, many men are still in the dark ages, like many liberal women accuses them of, therefore the modern hooker look, although acceptable in culture, can be a retro trigger, just like people who fixate on the civil war or slavery can be triggered by retro; flag.

It sounds like the poor stupid men have some evolving to do. Clearly, according to you, men have little self-control when it comes to their behaviour around women. it seems you also believe that many, if not most, men can't control their sexual urges or the behaviour that follows from them.

Is this the kind of thing that happens to you? When you see a woman dressed like a hooker, do you lose all control and become prone to violent acts? Or are you an exception for some reason?

If a male is considered to be living in the past with respect to women, hookers had a uniform way back when and one could proposition hookers directly. This is how business was conducted. These women were tough and would put him in place, while making a transaction.

So you're saying that hookers today aren't what they used to be? Or are you saying that "normal" women shouldn't dress like hookers because they don't have the old=style hooker skills they need to keep men under control?

The work around is for a PC like movement to sanitize female sex triggers in the work place. If men act after that, there is no excuse. Not all women will want this because the hooker uniform has advantages based on its ability to trigger men, with these women knowing how to handle triggered men. The amateurs suffer.

How does the PC-like movement sanitize female triggers in the work place? And who is in charge of the PC-like movement?

Is it your view that many, if not most, women want to dress like hookers in the workplace, but are prevented by the PC-like movement?

If the PC-like movement is part of "Liberalism" and the culture that says that dressing like a hooker is acceptable, isn't there a contradiction? Why would the PC-like movement oppose something that is part of its own culture?

 

[Tiassa]

By the way, I recall a thread I started recently where I posted a news article about male waiters having to change their kilts to pants in order to avoid molestation by female patrons. I asked the audience here about why these women behaved in such a fashion, and only one person responded. That individual stated that alcohol was the likely cause. I didn't find such an explanation tenable, as it's quite a stretch to say that all of the women in question were drunk, and not all drunk people engaged in sexual harassment. When pressed, he admitted that the situation was 'complex', although he didn't divulge what others causes might contribute to sexual harassment perpetrated by women. So I'm rather curious as to why alcohol hasn't been mentioned as a contributing factor in this case?

Does alcohol, then, explain why other police officers didn't intervene until someone started shooting?

Maybe if you treated sexual harassment for the important issue it is, instead of some petty political fight, people would have a better opinion of how you express yourself. The character you play here, the person you depict yourself as, is a miserable human failure.

I would like to think you're capable of better, but that only leaves the question of why you would choose such indecency and indignity.

 

[pjdude1219]

No. After all, it's not unheard of for a woman to lash out when her sexual advance is rejected, hence the phrase 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'.

first of the full quote is "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned," its a line from the mourning bride. and your grossly misrepresenting the meaning of it. probably do to your misogynistic tendencies. its meaning is a woman will be pissed as all hell at being betrayed. in fact Zara's anger that leads to that quote is not at being rejected but at being decieved and having her love betrayed.

 

[tali89]

Uh oh, looks like I've upset the hornet's nest of butthurt liberals.

You are still saying that a guy who felt so enraged that a woman dared to refuse his sexual harassment and sexual groping, fired a gun in a room full of cops was not exhibiting male privilege...

I'm saying that there could be other plausible explanations for his behavior. Or do you think that male privilege is the only possible explanation? If so, why don't all men shoot women who reject their sexual advances? If all men possess nebulous privilege, then you would think we'd be seeing an epidemic of women getting shot after turning down men.

I said that he sexually harassed her, as the facts of what happened clearly shows.

I don't understand why you feel that there needs to be a time limit imposed on said sexual harassment.

There isn't, which is why I'm perplexed as to why you brought it up. Indeed, you continue to bring it up in the post I'm responding to. At this point I've asked you twice for an estimate (in minutes) as to what you define as a 'while', and you haven't provided an answer, so I'm not going to bother pursuing this any further. I'll just conclude that your claim that the woman was sexually harassed for a 'while' without anyone intervening is conjecture, and leave it at that. No doubt you'll try and spin this as some sort of victory, crowing that I'm running away etc etc, just like your liberal comrades on this forum have a propensity to do.

Ermm in case you aren't aware, "nobody raised an eyebrow" and "no-one said anything" is pretty much the same thing.

They are not the same thing in the language English speaking societies use. Now, I could quite easily provide a number of sources that define 'raising an eyebrow' as exhibiting surprise or shock, but we both know you'd just wave it off and change the topic, meaning any effort I make in educating you a complete waste. So I'll just conclude that your claim that none of the people in the bar 'raised an eyebrow' is further unsupported conjecture.

No one brushed it off in the other thread. Why? Because what those women did were wholly inappropriate and classified as sexual harassment. What people did in the other thread was to question your motives.

Nobody exhibited near the level of outrage they have in this thread, nor did they remark on supposed 'female privilege'.

An obvious case of male privilege is brought up in a power, purity and meekness thread about rape culture after he sexually harassed a woman, groped her and then got so angry that she told him not to do it again that he fired a gun in a crowded room.

Again, was the officer in question thrown a parade, or given a garland of roses? Oh no, wait, he was mobbed and arrested. I'm not seeing this supposed 'male privilege' you keep prattling on about.

I said and as is evidenced from the affidavit, when she was sexually harassed and groped, no one said or did anything about it. Which clearly indicates that no one thought it wrong or bad. They only reacted after he pulled the gun and fired.

So society doesn't condone his behavior, but the people in the bar did, so society does condone his behavior because of 'male privilege'. Um, what? If that's not a case of liberal double-think, then I don't know what is.

You were called out on your hypocrisy and you were unable to justify your position or answer truthfully.

My 'position'? Pray tell, what position was I adopting when I started a thread seeking to understand why some women engaged in sexual harassment? More importantly, how can you divine my personal opinion on a complex issue from my asking a simple question? The fact is I started a thread in an attempt to determine why the women in two cases studies engaged in sexual harassment. A number of leftists took it upon themselves to ridicule me, instead of addressing the topic of the thread. One particular individual did attempt to provide an explanation (ie. alcohol). I pointed out that such an explanation couldn't be the only cause, and asked why he had offered a variety of different explanations (ie. personality defects, 'male privilege', 'rape culture') in another thread which focused on examples of men sexually harassing women. At this point he became overly defensive, and instead of elaborating of what he claimed was a 'complex situation', condescended to personal attacks and misrepresentations.

OK, OK, you don't trust my motives. So what? My question wasn't particularly outrageous, it was just an attempt to determine why some women sexually harassed men, when such behavior is commonly assumed to be due to rape culture and male privilege. Why the sudden need to misrepresent me and place me on trial for views I don't hold? Are leftists so emotionally fragile that they can't withstand having their beliefs scrutinized, and can only resort to ridicule and petty personal attacks when challenged?

Have you ever considered that it is perhaps your method, approach and personality that has the effect of acid on eyeballs? At all?

For all the tendency my posts have to be like 'acid on eyeballs', you leftists sure do hang on my every word. Either you are masochists, or stupid.

 

[pjdude1219]

Uh oh, looks like I've upset the hornet's nest of butthurt liberals.

more like honesty people tired of your dishonest bullshit tali

For all the tendency my posts have to be like 'acid on eyeballs', you leftists sure do hang on my every word. Either you are masochists, or stupid.

no one hangs onto your every word. god you have delusions of grander. and why would we be stupid. you get proven to be an ignorant bigot almost every time you decide to go on one of your childish rants.

 

[tali89]

tali89:
That's not what happened in the case you are ostensibly discussing, so why do you think that is relevant?

Bells has made the assumption that the officer's behavior was caused by some sort of nebulous 'male privilege'. I think it's presumptuous to assume this, when some women (who cannot possess 'male privilege', for obvious reasons) exhibit similar behavior. Bells hasn't provided a coherent argument as to why male privilege must be to blame in this specific scenario. Perhaps you can help your comrade out? Goodness knows she rushes to defend you at a moment's notice.

I think it's safe to assume that, though I'm not sure whether it is a personality flaw. Nobody likes rejection. Most people manage to get over it without violence.

Taking rejection so personally that you hold a grudge, or resort to violence, is a sign of a personality flaw.

You want to re-open that discussion?

The discussion was never closed. I simply chose to stop responding to you in particular, because you were not remaining on topic, and were refusing to elaborate on what you thought caused some women to engage in sexual harassment (ergo. the topic of the thread). I'm more than happy to discuss the issue with other interested posters on that thread, as contrary to what you may think, the discussion doesn't revolve around your ego and that massive chip on your shoulder. However, if you elaborate on the 'complexities' that cause some women to sexually harass men, and why (or if) you feel the reasons differ between genders, I might take pity on you and respond. That would involve you valuing a good faith discussion over a personal vendetta, though, and I'm not sure if you can manage that.

It took a while, but you couldn't leave it alone, could you?

Again, I'm not interested in discussing the matter further with you unless you improve your attitude. However, I will reference the content posted on that thread if I feel it's relevant to similar topics on this forum. The fact that you take any reference to that thread in such a personal manner, when I didn't mention you by name, hints at your insecurity.

The thread is available for everybody to read. I urge everybody to read the actual thread,

(emphasis mine)

Hang on, I thought you considered 'urging' someone to do something to be a covert form of coercion? Isn't it a little unfair to coerce others into reading your content?

Hehe. We all know that's not true. You ran away from the other thread.

After I chose to end the discussion between us, you attempted (and failed) to goad me into rejoining the conversation. You also tried to bait me into rejoining the discussion in two other *unrelated* threads. I know you're trying to vex me with the 'come at me bro!' attitude, but if anything it provides me with an endless source of amusement, since it's clear I'm living in your head rent-free. The simple fact of the matter is that you attempted to ambush me, and I exposed you as a charlatan and kicked you to the curb with minimal effort. You were so rattled that you started making basic spelling errors, continually pleading for a rematch, and tried to squeeze an apology out of me. I wouldn't be surprised if you scuttled off to the moderator's forum to get some validation from Bells and company in a desperate attempt to soothe your battered ego.

Your behavior is similar to that of a little child who picks a fight, gets curb stomped, throws a few feeble punches at the back of his opponent's head as they walk away, and then screeches that they could kick that kid's ass if they had the guts to jump back in the ring. You see, while it's definitely in your interest to continue with your posturing in an attempt to salvage your tarnished reputation, I'm quite comfortable quitting while I'm on top, and spare myself the misery of dealing with your inferiority complex. Oh, but I will use our past discussion as a reference for whenever I require an example of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty in left-wingers. And I know every time I mention it, you'll be there to petulantly demand you have a chance to redeem yourself.

.I wonder how long it will be before you raise an issue of "men's rights" again? Not very long, I'd guess, because by all indications you're fairly obsessed about the topic. Maybe you should tell us your story.

I haven't mentioned the phrase 'men's rights' since I started posting here, so it's rather peculiar that you (and Bells, and Tiassa) should bring it up, as if you lemmings all read from the same script. What's also curious is that you mention obsessions. In spite of you having deemed me 'not worth wasting your time on', here you are yet again, hanging on my every word and responding to my posts in a sentence-by-sentence format. This is after spending time speculating on my real-life persona, requesting evidence of my gender, and admitting to picturing my crying face in your mind. Such behavior is precisely why I have ended past discussions with you, and even allowed you to have the last word. When you choose to make a discussion about your personal vendetta instead of the topic at hand, it really isn't appropriate for me to enable your childish and dissonant behavior. Instead I will give you the amount of attention a bawling child in the middle of a temper tantrum merits: None.

 

[pjdude1219]

Bells has made the assumption that the officer's behavior was caused by some sort of nebulous 'male privilege'. I think it's presumptuous to assume this, when some women (who cannot possess 'male privilege', for obvious reasons) exhibit similar behavior. Bells hasn't provided a coherent argument as to why male privilege must be to blame in this specific scenario. Perhaps you can help your comrade out? Goodness knows she rushes to defend you at a moment's notice.

are you really that ignorant that you don't know how for decades the law and society pushed the idea that men had a right to a women's body? and how that constitute privilege? hell people of you ideological stripe still argue today that a husband can't rape his wife.

Taking rejection so personally that you hold a grudge, or resort to violence, is a sign of a personality flaw.

so is thinking people are obsessed with you for simply for being in the same areas as you.

The discussion was never closed. I simply chose to stop responding to you in particular, because you were not remaining on topic, and were refusing to elaborate on what you thought caused some women to engage in sexual harassment (ergo. the topic of the thread). I'm more than happy to discuss the issue with other interested posters on that thread, as contrary to what you may think, the discussion doesn't revolve around your ego and that massive chip on your shoulder. However, if you elaborate on the 'complexities' that cause some women to sexually harass men, and why (or if) you feel the reasons differ between genders, I might take pity on you and respond. That would involve you valuing a good faith discussion over a personal vendetta, though, and I'm not sure if you can manage that.

i read that thread. you and me must have been seeing something very different. because i so you try and make it all about james despite his attempts to stay on topic. refused to answer the simplest of questions, generally act in bad faith and than run away when you got called on it. quite frankly you projected your own egomania onto james just like your doing here.

Again, I'm not interested in discussing the matter further with you unless you improve your attitude. However, I will reference the content posted on that thread if I feel it's relevant to similar topics on this forum. The fact that you take any reference to that thread in such a personal manner, when I didn't mention you by name, hints at your insecurity.

the person with the shitty attitude doesn't get to complain about others. you have been treated with a level of deference and respect you don't deserve. quite whining that people aren't being subservient to you. he takes it personally because you made the entire thread about him. or are you so delusional you forgot you did that?

(emphasis mine)

Hang on, I thought you considered 'urging' someone to do something to be a covert form of coercion? Isn't it a little unfair to coerce others into reading your content?

context is important. and why would you encourage people to see how dishonest you are? i fail to see how that benefits you?

After I chose to end the discussion between us, you attempted (and failed) to goad me into rejoining the conversation. You also tried to bait me into rejoining the discussion in two other *unrelated* threads. I know you're trying to vex me with the 'come at me bro!' attitude, but if anything it provides me with an endless source of amusement, since it's clear I'm living in your head rent-free. The simple fact of the matter is that you attempted to ambush me, and I exposed you as a charlatan and kicked you to the curb with minimal effort. You were so rattled that you started making basic spelling errors, continually pleading for a rematch, and tried to squeeze an apology out of me. I wouldn't be surprised if you scuttled off to the moderator's forum to get some validation from Bells and company in a desperate attempt to soothe your battered ego.

more of your delusions of grander i see. all of this is lie and gross misrepresentations designed to stroke your ego.

Your behavior is similar to that of a little child who picks a fight, gets curb stomped, throws a few feeble punches at the back of his opponent's head as they walk away, and then screeches that they could kick that kid's ass if they had the guts to jump back in the ring.

no thats you. you haven't curb stomped anyone. you like the wannabe bully who gets his ass kicked and than claims he let it happen.

You see, while it's definitely in your interest to continue with your posturing in an attempt to salvage your tarnished reputation, I'm quite comfortable quitting while I'm on top, and spare myself the misery of dealing with your inferiority complex. Oh, but I will use our past discussion as a reference for whenever I require an example of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty in left-wingers. And I know every time I mention it, you'll be there to petulantly demand you have a chance to redeem yourself.

all james is doing is asking you to have a good faith discussion all your doing is going on ego trips

I haven't mentioned the phrase 'men's rights' since I started posting here, so it's rather peculiar that you (and Bells, and Tiassa) should bring it up, as if you lemmings all read from the same script.

one doesn't have to use a term to be talking about it.

What's also curious is that you mention obsessions. In spite of you having deemed me 'not worth wasting your time on', here you are yet again, hanging on my every word and responding to my posts in a sentence-by-sentence format.

um i'm pretty sure tiassa or bells is the mod for this sub forum and james is an admin. they need to be here to properly do those roles. that they keep smacking down your ignorant bs is incidental. they probably don't want to deal with you. god knows i feel dirty every time i do. your obesession with them and contined attempts to goad them is the issue.

This is after spending time speculating on my real-life persona, requesting evidence of my gender, and admitting to picturing my crying face in your mind

well most people would wonder if your this much of a dick in real life and for the others its probably grossly out of context.

Such behavior is precisely why I have ended past discussions with you, and even allowed you to have the last word. When you choose to make a discussion about your personal vendetta instead of the topic at hand, it really isn't appropriate for me to enable your childish and dissonant behavior. Instead I will give you the amount of attention a bawling child in the middle of a temper tantrum merits: None.

no you ended them because you weren't getting what you wanted as a response to your childish outbursts. that you think you come out ahead is only more indication your delusional

 

[Bells]

I'm saying that there could be other plausible explanations for his behavior. Or do you think that male privilege is the only possible explanation?

Umm.. Okay..

Do you understand that when I said male privilege, that I was applying it to Sheka, right?

You do understand this? Because if you do, how in the world could you have possibly come out with this next question?

If so, why don't all men shoot women who reject their sexual advances?

And if the stupid was not bad enough, you actually went further:

If all men possess nebulous privilege, then you would think we'd be seeing an epidemic of women getting shot after turning down men.

Ermm..

Would it make it easier for you to understand if I had said "this individual's male privilege"? Is that it? Is that why you are coming undone?

It is staggering. Is this an online persona thing only? Or are you like this in real life?

There isn't, which is why I'm perplexed as to why you brought it up.

Because he had managed to sexually harass her, then sexually grope her and nothing was said or done about it and they only acted when he shot his gun? So it had gone on for long enough to constitute a while?

Really, how hard is this for you to understand?

Indeed, you continue to bring it up in the post I'm responding to. At this point I've asked you twice for an estimate (in minutes) as to what you define as a 'while', and you haven't provided an answer, so I'm not going to bother pursuing this any further.

I would suggest you not pursue it further because it makes you look like a gormless twit.

No, really, why do you need exact time? Are you having issues with "a while"? Does it trigger a fit in you? Do you require completion?

I have a suggestion for you. Act it out. See how long it takes you to say the words.. Say see how long it takes for you to make some sexually offensive comments, then see how many seconds (in your case minutes) it takes for you to ask or say the words that mirror asking someone to show you their breasts.. Then say the words of rejection, them mimic her talking to someone else and the few seconds it would have taken for her to be dragged towards the dance floor. And then imagine someone shooting a gun.. I would suggest a stop watch.

I'll just conclude that your claim that the woman was sexually harassed for a 'while' without anyone intervening is conjecture, and leave it at that.

Okay. Whatever you want. If it makes you feel better and you can sleep soundly at night, sure. The rest of us will just go by what it stated on the affidavit, which clearly indicated that no one said anything to him, and she told him no and to not touch her again, where he then pulled out a gun and fired it.

No doubt you'll try and spin this as some sort of victory, crowing that I'm running away etc etc, just like your liberal comrades on this forum have a propensity to do.

Victory? No. I tend to not crow or claim victory when arguing with a dumbass. There is no challenge.

Now, I could quite easily provide a number of sources that define 'raising an eyebrow' as exhibiting surprise or shock, but we both know you'd just wave it off and change the topic, meaning any effort I make in educating you a complete waste. So I'll just conclude that your claim that none of the people in the bar 'raised an eyebrow' is further unsupported conjecture.

Okay?

Does it make you feel better? Bring you closure?

Sure. Whatever you say.

The rest of us will just carry on discussing the actual issue and leave you to talk to yourself and the wall in the corner of the room.

Nobody exhibited near the level of outrage they have in this thread, nor did they remark on supposed 'female privilege'.

I take it you don't remember your pitching a fit?

/pat.. It's okay.

Again, was the officer in question thrown a parade, or given a garland of roses? Oh no, wait, he was mobbed and arrested. I'm not seeing this supposed 'male privilege' you keep prattling on about.

What is it with your obsession with parades and garlands of roses?

Why does that need to happen for a discussion on a pretty clear case of male privilege?

Do you understand that these things can happen in isolation and in isolated cases? Would you like us to explain what we mean by "male privilege"? Because you appear to be having severe issues.

 

[Bells]

So society doesn't condone his behavior, but the people in the bar did, so society does condone his behavior because of 'male privilege'.

Umm.. Considering it was allowed to continue without reprimand until he got to the point where he pulled a gun and fired it when she told him no and told him to not touch her again, and it was only then that they disarmed him and then arrested him.. Up to that point, no one said boo about his behaviour. Even the officer who was right there next to the server, who would have heard the whole exchange. They certainly heard enough to give a blow by blow of what he said and did leading up to the shooting. So why didn't they tell him to stop sooner? Why didn't anyone tell him it wasn't acceptable? Wouldn't you have said something if one of your friends was sexually harassing a woman and then groping her without her consent?

Um, what? If that's not a case of liberal double-think, then I don't know what is.

Well at the moment, it is clear you don't really know anything at all...

My 'position'? Pray tell, what position was I adopting when I started a thread seeking to understand why some women engaged in sexual harassment?

Personally, I think you are a troll, which is why you are trying to troll this thread and instead of discussing your "issues" in your thread, you ran away from that after your hypocrisy was exposed and now you are misrepresenting everything about that thread here. Perhaps you should take your little issues back to your thread?

More importantly, how can you divine my personal opinion on a complex issue from my asking a simple question?

Have you failed to note the absolute rubbish you spout on this site? Hell, in this thread alone. One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not be able to tell or "divine" your personal opinion. The festering stench your posts are drenched with would probably alert even them.

The fact is I started a thread in an attempt to determine why the women in two cases studies engaged in sexual harassment.

And your questions were answered. Why are you unable to discuss it in said thread?

A number of leftists took it upon themselves to ridicule me, instead of addressing the topic of the thread.

I believe they addressed the topic of the thread. You were unable to answer basic questions and then when your clear hypocrisy that stands out like a light house was pointed out, you, threw a tantrum and refused to respond to their valid queries and comments that were on topic and on point. That wasn't ridicule. My saying you are coming across like a gormless twat is ridicule. They are much kinder and more polite than I am.

One particular individual did attempt to provide an explanation (ie. alcohol). I pointed out that such an explanation couldn't be the only cause, and asked why he had offered a variety of different explanations (ie. personality defects, 'male privilege', 'rape culture') in another thread which focused on examples of men sexually harassing women.

You mean James R? You were unable to back up any of your arguments, at all. You kept misrepresenting everything and taking things out of context in doing so (gee, what a surprise *rolls eyes*) and you were unable to substantiate any of your claims, such as your saying that it could not be the only cause. Why couldn't be the only cause? Do you have anything to back this up? At all? There is a lot of literature about this subject, why not provide it to support your case? You were asked to explain why your opinions on sexual harassment varied so greatly and why you were blaming female victims in one thread for being sexually harassed, but then when it came to male victims, you applied a completely different standard. You were unable to explain the massive hypocrisy and discrepancy in your arguments.

At this point he became overly defensive, and instead of elaborating of what he claimed was a 'complex situation', condescended to personal attacks and misrepresentations.

Err I believe you were the one who became defensive, refused to answer any questions and then left. It's been what? A couple of weeks now and you are still to answer the pertinent questions about your double standards and hypocrisy in that thread. So it begs the question, why you are now bringing it up here, in a different thread, and going out of your way to misrepresent what was actually said?

OK, OK, you don't trust my motives.

I tend to not trust people who are deranged or trolling.

So what? My question wasn't particularly outrageous, it was just an attempt to determine why some women sexually harassed men, when such behavior is commonly assumed to be due to rape culture and male privilege. Why the sudden need to misrepresent me and place me on trial for views I don't hold? Are leftists so emotionally fragile that they can't withstand having their beliefs scrutinized, and can only resort to ridicule and petty personal attacks when challenged?

Then perhaps you can go back to that thread and ask it there?

I don't understand why you are avoiding your own thread like the plague and why you are trying to troll this one demanding answers about your thread in this thread?

At this rate, I am just going to move all your answers into your own thread so you can keep to yourself there.

James even provided a link and has restarted the conversation you appear to want to have with him, since you keep going on about it and him in this thread. Why are you avoiding it so much?

For all the tendency my posts have to be like 'acid on eyeballs', you leftists sure do hang on my every word. Either you are masochists, or stupid.

Hang? No. I would say this level of stupid that you espouse is not often seen here or anywhere, really.

 

[Bells]

Hang on, I thought you considered 'urging' someone to do something to be a covert form of coercion? Isn't it a little unfair to coerce others into reading your content?

He's actually urging them to read your content. Which yes, is unfair to anyone who is subjected to your trolling.

And context. I know, foreign concept and everything for you.

Why don't you go back to your thread to discuss what you want to discuss there, instead of trolling this thread with it and trying to throw it off topic?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I'm not a fan of ,tali89, but maybe he is viewing it as an isolated incident.

 

[Bells]

Because I was discussing the one incident...

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Er... I've never experienced anything like what was mentioned. It seems an anomaly. The firearms of course make it... access to stupid.

 

[Tiassa]

Er... I've never experienced anything like what was mentioned. It seems an anomaly. The firearms of course make it... access to stupid.

I would ask you to imagine that some random male somewhere decides he really likes what you're wearing, and starts hitting on you.

Now, here's the important question: What gives him any right to hit on you?

Now I would ask you to imagine some handsome dude waiting in a car for his colleague to return; he's got nice arms and pecs, and is wearing one of those sleeveless shirts intended to show off what he's got. So, you know, maybe he's just perfect aesthetically speaking. Imagine, please, that I decide to hit on him.

Please understand that I would be risking my life; customarily, you just don't treat another man that way.

If that man was a woman? Hell, how is a guy supposed to meet women if he doesn't just randomly hit on them? And if her partner is upset, beat him. And if she says no, smash her fucking teeth in with a metal pipe.

I raise that issue because, well:

Shreveport police have arrested a teen in connection with an attack that left a teenager facing reconstructive dental work.

Jalen Jack, 18, is charged with second degree battery in connection with an incident that left Jessica Byrnes-Laird with at least ten broken teeth and too many stitches to count after a routine trip to the gas station turned violent.

Police arrested Jack Monday afternoon.

Byrnes-Laird says she was attacked with a brass pipe while parked at the A & Y Quick Stop in Shreveport's MLK neighborhood Sunday night.

Still wearing her bikini after a day spent swimming, Byrnes-Laird said a group of men approached her car while her boyfriend was inside buying cigarettes. When he heard about their reported lewd comments, Byrnes-Laird's boyfriend fought the men before getting behind the wheel to leave. That's when they say someone -- just off-camera -- took a brass pipe, and threw it through the open passenger window, smashing Jessica in the face.

(Machi↱)​

Here we encounter the question of male privilege. A female in a bikini, sitting in a car in the parking lot outside a convenience store. Obviously, she's there to be hit on, right? Because, you know, how is a guy supposed to meet women?

How am I supposed to meet men? It's a different market dynamic, but the essential point remains: Not by sexually harassing them.

And, frankly, this seems pretty straightforward.

If the object of that desire is a woman, though?

Part of her existential condition would seem to have something to do with men hitting on her.

This is just one aspect of male privilege.

And as we can see, it's worth a lot to men.
____________________

Notes:

Machi, Sara. "UPDATED: Shreveport police make arrest in pipe attack". KTBS. 3 August 2015. KTBS.com. 16 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1W3qcFU

 

[Bells]

Er... I've never experienced anything like what was mentioned. It seems an anomaly. The firearms of course make it... access to stupid.

You've never been to a pub or a nightclub or club?

Every woman I know has gone through something similar. Every woman I know has been groped and propositioned when out at a club or pub or even out and about, sometimes at work, or at a friend's house or even your own house. These things happen to women every day, everywhere. Some men believe we are not allowed to say no.

Frankly, I think the fact that you have never been propositioned, groped, or even hit on in a way that made your skin crawl in horror, would probably be the anomaly. I don't know a single adult woman who hasn't had it happen to them in some way at least once.

 

[James R]

tali89:

Uh oh, looks like I've upset the hornet's nest of butthurt liberals.

You continually reveal yourself with these kinds of comments.

Maybe you ought to start a thread to explain exactly what you think is wrong with liberalism, as you see it. How would you label yourself? A non-butthurt conservative, I assume - the polar opposite, because you so hate those nasty evil liberals. So, how about you tell us all why social and political conservatism is so superior, in your expert opinion, to liberalism. Liberalism, as it happens, is the basis of the society in which you live. I don't see you expressing a desire to move to Saudi Arabia or Syria. Why is that?

The term "butthurt" is, I assume, some kind of insult used by young and immature people on the internet. Are you butthurt about something, tali89? You sure sound like you might be.

For all the tendency my posts have to be like 'acid on eyeballs', you leftists sure do hang on my every word. Either you are masochists, or stupid.

Or you're just a fun chew toy. Few people on sciforums manage to so comprehensively and so often undermine their own positions as you. It's endlessly entertaining.

Taking rejection so personally that you hold a grudge, or resort to violence, is a sign of a personality flaw.

Interesting that you should say that. It might be valuable for you to go away and think on that, in the context of your behaviour on sciforums.

The discussion was never closed.

Which one?

You mean the one in this thread?

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sexual-harassment.152471/

I simply chose to stop responding to you in particular, because ...

It's all there in the thread. It's one thing to try to bullshit other readers, but you're wasting your time trying to bullshit me. I was the one in there exposing your hypocrisy, remember.

Again, I'm not interested in discussing the matter further with you unless you improve your attitude.

You're not interested in discussing the matter because you made a fool of yourself. It's an ego-saving measure to run away.

The thread is available for everybody to read. I urge everybody to read the actual thread,

(emphasis mine)

Hang on, I thought you considered 'urging' someone to do something to be a covert form of coercion? Isn't it a little unfair to coerce others into reading your content?

urge (v.)
1. to recommend something strongly
2. to try earnestly or persistently to persuade (someone) to do something

There's no implication of covertness in the word "urge". I don't know where you got that from.

The issue of coercion will be context-dependent when it comes to urging. In particular, it is only possible to coerce somebody if you have some kind of hold or power over that person.

coerce (v.) - to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means.

So, for example, a father urging his daughter to undergo an abortion might well be coercive, due to the power imbalance and influence that may be implicit in the father-daughter relationship. On the other hand, when a poster on an internet forum urges somebody to read a particular text item, the only kind of coercion that suggests itself to me would be intellectual or moral.

Now, in a loaded question (above), you ask whether it would be unfair to coerce others into reading my content. In doing so, you are assuming I am unfairly exerting power, presumably by appealing to people's intellect or morality. I would argue that, if somebody were to feel compelled to read my content because they felt morally obliged or intellectually interested, then it wouldn't be me coercing them so much as their own disposition.

Since you're so obviously ill-equipped to deal with nuance, it is probably best if you read my word "urge" in the current context as merely a strong recommendation. And I also urge you to stay out of the abortion discussion in which a similar question arose.

After I chose to end the discussion between us, you attempted (and failed) to goad me into rejoining the conversation. You also tried to bait me into rejoining the discussion in two other *unrelated* threads.

Please don't tell lies. It makes you look small.

I know you're trying to vex me with the 'come at me bro!' attitude, but if anything it provides me with an endless source of amusement, since it's clear I'm living in your head rent-free.

If you ever want to have normal human relationships, you're really going to have to do something about that over-inflated ego of yours. You have delusions of grandeur that are quite out of step with reality.

The simple fact of the matter is ...

Your bullshit won't work. The thread is there for anybody who wants to read it. Why do you persist in your desperate attempts to rewrite history?

Your behavior is similar to that of a little child who picks a fight, gets curb stomped, throws a few feeble punches at the back of his opponent's head as they walk away, and then screeches that they could kick that kid's ass if they had the guts to jump back in the ring.

You're an angry young man, tali89. This kind of statement shows that you view everything as a battle. I hope you do not carry your pugilistic online attitudes over into the physical world. You sound like somebody who has real issues of anger management. Please seek professional help.

Oh, but I will use our past discussion as a reference for whenever I require an example of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty in left-wingers.

Which one? This one?

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sexual-harassment.152471/

Be my guest!

I haven't mentioned the phrase 'men's rights' since I started posting here, so it's rather peculiar that you (and Bells, and Tiassa) should bring it up, as if you lemmings all read from the same script.

You fit the mould of a "men's rights" activist in every respect. It wouldn't surprise me if your interests in that topic extend beyond the internet, into your "real life".

What's also curious is that you mention obsessions.

I said you are obsessed with "men's rights". Is that inaccurate?

In spite of you having deemed me 'not worth wasting your time on', here you are yet again, hanging on my every word and responding to my posts in a sentence-by-sentence format.

Recall that you were the one who said that he would be having no further discussion about sexual harassment with me. And it was you who resurrected the issue in this thread by explicitly referring to our previous discussion.

I know you would like very much if I would give you free air to pretend that our previous discussion never happened. Sorry, tali89, but that's not going to happen. I will hold you to account on this every time you try to raise the same issues and to pretend that discussion never happened.

If you don't want me to keep shining an uncomfortable light on you, you should stay away from this and similar topics. You dug your hole. You can leave it and run away, or you can stand in it and keep digging. Your choice. You tried running away, but you couldn't help yourself, so here you are digging again.

What will you do now?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I don't work in a bar. Are there statistics?

I want to be fair.

 

[Tiassa]

I don't work in a bar. Are there statistics?

Well, what statistics do you want? Some are apparent, even gathered in response to a direct question; others must be extracted from larger data sets.

To the other, we do have a recent glimpse:

It's official: Men drinking in bars often feel free to get grabby, make lewd remarks and otherwise sexually harass women who aren't interested. And many of these guys can't take a hint when women try to move away from them, a new study shows.

Though the study results aren't so surprising, especially to any woman who's ever tried to have a fun, unfettered night out with girlfriends, researchers say they are still disturbing, and they signal a need for cultural changes so that clubs are as safe and fun for women as they are for men.

For the study, researchers made more than 1,300 visits to 118 large dance clubs, sports bars and concert venues in Toronto, Canada. They used trained observers to watch bar-goers interact on the sly.

Out of more than 1,000 incidences that were recorded, about 25 percent involved some sort of unwanted sexual behavior. Ninety percent of those involved men harassing women ....

.... On average, women tried about four different things to signal that the attention was unwanted, researchers found. Still, more than half of the instances recorded for the study were classified as persistent, meaning the guy wasn't taking no for an answer.

Bar staff were largely unhelpful. Bouncers only intervened in 10 of 258 "aggressive" incidents, and in only one case was a guy tossed out of the bar for being sexually aggressive ....

.... An expert who was not involved in the research said that as upsetting as these findings are, they probably represent the milder situations that women experience in bars, simply because they happened out in the open, where they could be observed.

(Goodman↱)​

Or perhaps:

"In clubs there's a game called 'underhanding', where a boy stands behind a girl and tries to put his fingers inside her," says Stephanie Davies-Arai, one of the campaigners behind the No More Page 3 campaign.

"At a Feminism in London workshop recently there were about 70 people in the room and when someone brought this up, all the young women knew what the word meant."

From nasty comments, to groping and grabbing, sexual harassment is defined as behaviour that is unwanted, intimidating or humiliating for the victim. Touching another person in a sexual way when they haven't consented is defined by the police as sexual assault ....

.... Sash [Sheffield Anti-Sexual Harassment] is campaigning for clubs to hang posters on their walls to raise awareness. It is also asking them to train their bouncers and staff to spot and deal with harassment.

"It started when a friend was grabbed in a nightclub," says Lauren Archer, from Sash. "She reported the man to the bouncer, and he just said 'boys will be boys' and accused her of overreacting. Later she pushed the guy away and the bouncer kicked her out of the club."

Harassment happens so frequently that many don't even think to report it. "Sexual harassment is constant," says Archer. "People would touch my legs, bum or boobs, without my consent, two or three times a week when I was a fresher.

"Last time I went out, a group of four men blocked me from going through a door. When I asked them to move, one of them reached over, grabbed my face, forced it into a smile and told me to get over myself.

"I haven't reported harassment in ages because I became so used to bouncers laughing at me or saying it was my fault. It felt pointless to make a fuss about it."

(Young-Powell↱)​

Let's try a maybe:

Anyone who frequents bars or clubs is familiar with the wide variety of creeps who inflict themselves upon the female population. The guy who tries to grind up on every woman on the dance floor; the cocky, insistent jerk who won’t stop coming over, no matter how uninterested—or scared—the women he’s approaching are; the man who sidles up to the drunkest girl in the room ....

.... Plenty of bartenders ... combat the overwhelming tide of barroom horribleness without training. My friend Meredith, who bartends in North Carolina, puts napkins over the drinks of women who go to the bathroom, pours fake shots for those who are being pressured into drinking heavily, and sometimes has the barback drive women home. But victim-blaming runs deep in America, and enough bartenders and bouncers refrain from intervening that a few of my other female friends were surprised by the very topic of this article. They had never even thought of the bartender as a potential ally.

(Blumgart↱)​

Honestly, I could easily quote the whole of any of those articles. Please click through and give them a read. The first is an article about a study released in 2014 observing sexual aggression in bars; the second has to do with efforts of British university students to address sexual harassment in pubs and clubs; the third has to do with bystander and staff intervention against sexual harassment. All three pretty much bleed a common theme, the overwhelming amount of sexual harassment in bars, pubs, and clubs.
____________________

Notes:

Blumgart, Jake. "Step Up in the Club". Slate. 2 April 2014. Slate.com. 16 September 2015. http://slate.me/1OgySri

Goodman, Brenda. "Sexual Harassment Really Is Rampant in Bars, Study Finds". HealthDay. 4 March 2014. Consumer.HealthDay.com. 16 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1FOrVWc

Young-Powell, Abby. "Sexual harassment is constant in clubs and it must stop, students say". The Guardian. 5 November 2013. TheGuardian.com. 16 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1iQCJ1b

 

[tali89]

tali89 said: ↑
Uh oh, looks like I've upset the hornet's nest of butthurt liberals.

James R: You continually reveal yourself with these kinds of comments.

And what exactly do I reveal, pray tell? That I regard left-wingers as having a tendency to be whiny and dishonest? That's a most impressive bit of induction on your behalf. You're a real life Sherlock Holmes.

Just out of curiosity, why do you have a problem with me holding liberals in such low regard? Why are you so desperate for my approval?

Maybe you ought to start a thread to explain exactly what you think is wrong with liberalism, as you see it.

There is no need, when left-wingers such as Bells and yourself provide the audience with numerous case studies on the intellectual dishonesty and egotism rampant in the left-wing .

The term "butthurt" is, I assume, some kind of insult

No, it's simply an observation of your behavior. In every thread I have posted recently, you keep trying to drag me back into a discussion I unilaterally chose to end after you condescended to transparent evasions and personal attacks. You thought you were pretty smart, attempting to ambush me with nitpicks, but it backfired and I made a clown out of you in your own little fiefdom. Whenever I remind you that the ship has sailed, you resort to the internet equivalent of calling me chicken. It's lucky you have your fellow left-wingers around to provide you with validation and a nappy change, otherwise that chip on your shoulder would be even bigger.

Or you're just a fun chew toy.

Hehe. One moment you claim I'm not worth wasting your time on, the next you are bawling about my supposed lack of integrity and issuing me warning points, then you're picturing my face, then you regard me as a chew toy. Either you're lying, or are emotionally conflicted.

tali89 said: ↑
Taking rejection so personally that you hold a grudge, or resort to violence, is a sign of a personality flaw.

James R: Interesting that you should say that. It might be valuable for you to go away and think on that, in the context of your behaviour on sciforums.

What behavior are you thinking about, exactly? Because from memory, it was you who made numerous attempts to goad me into rejoining a discussion I had lost interest in, after I had unceremoniously slammed the door in your face. Indeed, I suspect that a large amount of your butthurt stems from the fact that I chose to walk away and not waste any more time dealing with your empty rhetoric. I took away your control by ignoring you, and it has you fuming even weeks after the fact. Everything has to be on your terms, doesn't it? The discussion has to fit your narrative, the opponent has to be pigeonholed into your distorted view of them, and you always, *always*, have to have the last word.

urge (v.)
1. to recommend something strongly
2. to try earnestly or persistently to persuade (someone) to do something

Sorry son, but the ship has sailed on that discussion as well. I gave you ample opportunity to demonstrate how urging a particular course of action equated to coercing someone, and you frittered it away with your transparent attempts to goad me into rejoining an unrelated discussion. Life isn't a video game where you can 'save and reload' to try again after a subpar performance. Despite your past history of intellectual dishonesty, I gave you a chance to support your supposition, and you blew it. I suggest you move on, instead of bitterly dwelling on old history.

You're an angry young man, tali89.

I'm not sure what it is with your propensity to mention my gender. Is this part of your fascination with me, or merely another facet of your inferiority complex? Were you passed over when the kids picked sporting teams because you couldn't kick the ball? Perhaps you were perplexed that the pretty girls dated all those big bad misogynists, while passing over such 'sweet' guys like you?

This kind of statement shows that you view everything as a battle.

Don't be absurd. We've had our battle, and I won. Everything after that is simply me trying to placate a sore loser.

Please seek professional help.

And what qualifications do you possess that enable you to make such a suggestion? I hope they weren't obtained from the same institution that taught you how to read and write, because judging from your poor literacy, I'd be better off getting a diagnosis from a faith healer.

You fit the mould of a "men's rights" activist in every respect.

Despite never having mentioned the topic of 'men's rights' in any of my posts on this forum? By the way, why are you so paranoid about the specter of 'men's rights'? Do you have issues with your own gender? Is the egotism you exhibit on this forum merely a mask that conceals a lot of self-hate?

Recall that you were the one who said that he would be having no further discussion about sexual harassment with me. And it was you who resurrected the issue in this thread by explicitly referring to our previous discussion.

I referenced material posted in the Sexual Harassment thread because it was relevant to the discussion in this thread. That doesn't mean I want to open up the discussion with you again. Even though you may regard this forum as your little fiefdom, not everything revolves around you.

I know you would like very much if I would give you free air to pretend that our previous discussion never happened. Sorry, tali89, but that's not going to happen.

Haha. You just claimed I 'explicitly referr[ed] to our previous discussion', and now you're claiming that I am pretending it never happened? How can I explicitly refer to something I am pretending didn't happen? Your double-think and internal contradictions are so blatant at this point that I'm starting to think you are delusional.

I will hold you to account on this every time you try to raise the same issues.

Oh, I'm sure you will. Because despite claiming I'm 'not worth wasting your time on', you'll continue to hang on my every word and dissect my every post. I wouldn't be surprised if you print my posts out and hang them on your bedroom wall so that they are the last thing you see before you fall asleep.