Jump to content
Click here to remove ads
fannywatcher

Sexual harrassment

Recommended Posts

Lately it seems about 90% of news is related to "sexual harrassment".What with Harvey Weinstein,and it seems 95% of UK politicians.

What IS "sexual harrassment"?It seems that if a girl felt a guys dick rub against her in a packed lift she can now have him arrested.Im totally against real sexual abuse,rape,domestic violence etc,but surely if a guy has made a clumsy pass at a girl,surely she can use her judgement to either slap him,or if she feels particularly threatened,call the police?

A UK minister recently resigned because on a dinner date,he put his hand on her knee..not slipped 3 fingers inside her pants,but just placed his clumsy hand on her shapely knee..The woman herself,has stated she removed his hand,and was completely unfazed by the attempted rape incident,and laughed it off.Of course serious sexual assault should be punished harshly,but what will become of humanity if sexual banter between men and women is to be frowned upon?The extinction of the Human race within 200 years?

This is,again,the loony left who wish to impose a quaker style puritanism upon us.A world in which pornography is banned.Banned because those XY chromosome people(men),are exploiting those XX chromosome people(women),for their own sexual gratification,without considering the emotional state of the women,and because ejaculation to porn is discriminatory as women are unable to ejaculate in kind,thus will be illegal.Where men can walk into womens changing rooms,or toilets,(im sure 99% of females would rather this DIDNT happen)on the pretence of having "gender issues".Where the real biological,chromosomal differences between the sexes are to be ignored,in case those XX chromosomal members of the population(also known as women),are in a position of discrimination.Like where having to pass a human being through your sexual organs(birth)will be considered illegal,as it impacts on those XX chromosomal people exclusively.

This goes way above a simple case of sexual harrassment.This will become an attack upon our civil liberties,to speak,act,and watch what we want.Yes,punish men that do rape,or physically abuse women,but lets banter,feel up each other,try look up skirts etc,without fear of prosecution?

Share this post


Link to post

GOLD members get unlimited conversations, 5 additional themes, access to The Lounge and MUCH more...

Click HERE to become a gold member today!

18 hours ago, fannywatcher said:

This goes way above a simple case of sexual harrassment.This will become an attack upon our civil liberties,to speak,act,and watch what we want.Yes,punish men that do rape,or physically abuse women,but lets banter,feel up each other,try look up skirts etc,without fear of prosecution?

I don't know what anyone else thinks of this, but I have 2 very pissed off ladies after they read this. Banter, within reason, is ok, but groping someone? Trying to look up skirts? No, it's not a done thing, in both cases Maigh and Mary have indicated that blood would flow and they would be happy to front court to defend themselves. I guess you've never seen a Scot go off, when both of them have a go, I have to breathe for them.

Not a good thing to make fun of, fw. Not a good thing at all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I am old enough to remember the time when a friendly pat on the bottom was just considered to be flirting,  and both men and women would do it without a second thought.  Now it appears that it is defined to be sexual assault.

Is that an improvement?  Many people seem to think so. I have my doubts, but I will of course comply with the law and modern customs.

In Sweden,  the lives of sex workers are now made miserable by a cruel set of laws known as the "nordic model".  I condemn this unequivocally.

I think FW is mistaken about this coming from the left of politics.  the "left" still embraces the sexual freedoms of the summer of love and the hippy movement.  The left still supports women's rights to contraception and abortion.

The whole "all sex is bad" and "inviting someone to lunch is harassment" movement in my opinion originates with the religious right and the so-called  "conservative" side of politics. Sadly it has found an ally in the more extreme fringes of the feminist movement . 

Women have every right to be safe and feel safe wherever they go in society. They have a right to be safe regardless of their choice of work, lifestyle or mode of dress.

If every man was like me, a woman could walk naked down Collins Street on a Saturday night and still be treated with respect and politeness.  Sadly that is not true of all men.

If the only way to achieve this level of safety and respect is to have "no touching" and "no flirting" laws that are draconian and over the top, then I suppose that is the price we must pay.

Share this post


Link to post

This is my point though.I said that i condemn sexual assault,other than a pat on the shoulder or a wolf-whistle..Im worried it will get to the point where babies will be given sex-changes at birth.I do not think the left does agree with sexual freedom at all,more likely it embraces the all men are bastards rule,which suits harridans like UK MPs such as Harriet Harman and Diane Abbott,and others.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, fannywatcher said:

I do not think the left does agree with sexual freedom at all,more likely it embraces the all men are bastards rule,which suits harridans like UK MPs such as Harriet Harman and Diane Abbott,and others.

I'm not familiar with your British politicians,  but don't make the mistake of thinking that anyone who disagrees with you is from "the left".

Here in Australia the religious reich   right of the liberal party (equivalent to your Tories) has been trying its best to suppress peoples marriage and contraception rights for years.   Before that,  the extreme Catholic right wing of the Labor party tried to censor the Internet. 

Pretty much every freedom that ordinary people enjoy in Australia today was given to us by the left. 

Share this post


Link to post

this whole thing is getting out of hand recently, sexual harassment is wrong, of course it is, but how do you clearly define it? If I ran a pub and told all my barmaids that they must wear short skirts and low cut tops to please the customers, that would be sexual harassment, however if the staff wore them of their own volition to get bigger tips, that would be fine. Grabbing hold of a woman is never ok, it's unwanted attention, I get incredibly annoyed when people say that a rape victim was asking for it because she wore tight trousers, or a short skirt, she wore what she was comfortable in, end of!

I'm from an era when men would put their arm around a woman's shoulder, say when guiding her through a door, or through a crowd, it was a kind of protection. Shouting crude remarks at women in the street is never ok, but sometimes a whistle can actually lift a woman's spirits. Maybe her husband has made her feel worthless and unattractive, he tells her she's ugly and nobody else would want her, a whistle from a bloke may actually make her feel like she could attract another fella.

I sometimes wonder if some of the people who complain about things do so because they are not getting any, do some women thing a wolf whistle is degrading simply because nobody ever whistles at them? Isn't it a bit like smoking or drinking, there are people who supported a smoking ban in public places, not because of health concerns, but simply because they didn't want to see people enjoying themselves! Here in the UK where they banned smoking in public buildings, there are now people who want to take it a stage further, by banning it in parks and open spaces!

I remember recently I was at work and got talking to a lady, personally I thought she was quite attractive, I mentioned something about my age (52) and she replied that she knew what I was saying as she was 50 and didn't feel as sprightly as she did when she was younger. My response was that I couldn't believe she was 50, I thought early 40's, the reaction was instant. You could physically see her straighten up, push her chest out a little, and walk that bit taller, I could imagine when her husband came home from work, she'd be all happy and tell him how today a bloke had told her she looked a lot younger than she did. Is this sexual harassment? no, in my day it was called paying a lady a compliment.

It's the same with some of the allegations being made over events that happened in the 70's, to give anyone a fair trial then the jury would have to consist of people in their 60's or 70's, because things that were considered normal then are not considered normal today. I remember seeing girls of 14 or 15 waiting to meet their favourite pop stars, while wearing very short skirts and even shorter tops, that was the way back then, I've seen girls ask for an autograph, then pull their top up and ask for it written across their tits. My  wife whom I would hardly describe as a tart, will happily tell you of times back then when aged about 15, her mother would make her change her skirt for a longer one, before going out, and how before she'd reached the corner the skirt would be rolled up at the waistband, and now rested several inches above her knee. I doubt anyone who knows her has not heard the story of her favourite outfit,  the red pvc mac and matching pvc knee high boots, worn with a tight top, and a skirt that ,as she puts it was so short it was practically a belt. She'll laugh as she tells you that it was so short if she bent over, it showed more than a flash of her panties.

Like most girls of that era, by the time she was 18 she was settled down and had her first child, that was the way it was, they left school, settled down and had kids, ran a house and their husbands went out to work, that was the done thing back then, any woman in her mid 20's who wasn't settled was looked on as unusual, not like today where women are still single in their late 20's or early 30's, still partying and nobody thinks it's odd.

There are far too many things happening today that annoy or worry me, look at the growing number of people who feel it is their solemn duty to be offended on someone else's behalf!

If the Irish bloke who drinks in my pub doesn't get upset if people call him Paddy, even though his name is Micheal, then why should anyone feel they need to be offended on his behalf? If Mr Singh who owns the corner shop iis happy that everyone calls it Abdul's then whats the problem, is he really arsed what you call his shop as long as you spend your money there? Probably not, if he was, then no doubt he'd soon tell you.

It's the same with gay people ( I know quite a few) most of them are not bothered by a lot of this "equality for gays" stuff that's doing the rounds, they've lived with partners for years without bothering about being legally married, and no doubt some would have preferred it if things had been left as they were, a lot of what has gone on has only brought them into conflict with the real anti gay nutter brigade!

Think of it another way, before modern methods of warfare, battles were fought with swords and cannons, does that make our ancestors savages because they stabbed people, rather than killing them neatly and cleanly with a bullet? No it doesn't it's called progress, something which a lot of these people today need to remember.

  • Agree 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Here is my take. The news media is no longer concerned about being objective and practicing proper reporting, but rather their main concern is generating a craze for viewership and revenue. What they cover and the method in which they cover it are very calculated. The sexual assault allegations in the media right now are the latest hot thing that generates viewership, article clicks on websites and social media posts. Hashtag me too is a clear example of it working. Bill Cosby was a hot story. It was a huge rating spike. Now the same with Weinstein and all others that have been accused. 

A few things to consider: Why wait 10, 20, 30 years to speak up? They say that rape victims are afraid and it can take a long time to come forward. That's true, especially when the rapist is powerful. So then the question that needs answered is, how the hell did they suddenly develop the confidence to speak up, all at the same time, for the entire world to see? No one develops that kind of strength out of the blue. Another question is, why post it on social media, if you are a real victim and want justice served? Posting on social media is drawing attention to yourself, tipping your rapist off so they can better defend themselves and also makes it far more difficult for the police to properly investigate. If you are a scared shitless legitimate rape victim, the last thing you will do is tell the whole world on social media, instead of filing a police report. If you notice, these women making accusations are all washed up actresses that don't get gigs anymore and are probably looking for a payday. If someone killed your family, would you call the police, or post on Facebook? Alyssa Milano, the most outspoken accuser of Weinstein, has a history of whoring herself around in Hollywood for attention.

One more that I want to mention, is that you should always be suspicious of whatever big ongoing story the news is talking about. Remember, they are not concerned about the truth.

Edited by Brutus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/19/2017 at 8:08 AM, Brutus said:

Here is my take. The news media is no longer concerned about being objective and practicing proper reporting, but rather their main concern is generating a craze for viewership and revenue. What they cover and the method in which they cover it are very calculated. The sexual assault allegations in the media right now are the latest hot thing that generates viewership, article clicks on websites and social media posts. Hashtag me too is a clear example of it working. Bill Cosby was a hot story. It was a huge rating spike. Now the same with Weinstein and all others that have been accused. 

A few things to consider: Why wait 10, 20, 30 years to speak up? They say that rape victims are afraid and it can take a long time to come forward. That's true, especially when the rapist is powerful. So then the question that needs answered is, how the hell did they suddenly develop the confidence to speak up, all at the same time, for the entire world to see? No one develops that kind of strength out of the blue. Another question is, why post it on social media, if you are a real victim and want justice served? Posting on social media is drawing attention to yourself, tipping your rapist off so they can better defend themselves and also makes it far more difficult for the police to properly investigate. If you are a scared shitless legitimate rape victim, the last thing you will do is tell the whole world on social media, instead of filing a police report. If you notice, these women making accusations are all washed up actresses that don't get gigs anymore and are probably looking for a payday. If someone killed your family, would you call the police, or post on Facebook? Alyssa Milano, the most outspoken accuser of Weinstein, has a history of whoring herself around in Hollywood for attention.

One more that I want to mention, is that you should always be suspicious of whatever big ongoing story the news is talking about. Remember, they are not concerned about the truth.

Exactly! I have often thought along the same lines, especially when a group of people come forward after their alleged abuser has been found guilty of offences against other people, are they hoping to jump on the bandwagon and get a few quid in compensation?

I was recently discussing something similar with a lady who runs a company providing support for domestic violence victims, take this hypothetical situation.

A man is accused of raping a woman, his name and more often than not, the street where he lives will plastered all over the press, he may lose his friends, his partner may leave him, he will no doubt find his job affected also. Following a trial,if there is one (quite often it doesn't go to trial) he's found not guilty and his accuser is found to have lied! If she is named, all too often it gets a couple of column inches somewhere in the back of the paper, usually where it will not be seen by most people.

If they are going to name anyone before they are found guilty, then lets name the accused and the accuser, it should be both or neither. If a woman is capable of making malicious allegations, then it is only right that she be named also..

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/21/2017 at 5:09 AM, owlman76 said:

Exactly! I have often thought along the same lines, especially when a group of people come forward after their alleged abuser has been found guilty of offences against other people, are they hoping to jump on the bandwagon and get a few quid in compensation?

I was recently discussing something similar with a lady who runs a company providing support for domestic violence victims, take this hypothetical situation.

A man is accused of raping a woman, his name and more often than not, the street where he lives will plastered all over the press, he may lose his friends, his partner may leave him, he will no doubt find his job affected also. Following a trial,if there is one (quite often it doesn't go to trial) he's found not guilty and his accuser is found to have lied! If she is named, all too often it gets a couple of column inches somewhere in the back of the paper, usually where it will not be seen by most people.

If they are going to name anyone before they are found guilty, then lets name the accused and the accuser, it should be both or neither. If a woman is capable of making malicious allegations, then it is only right that she be named also..

 

 

Yes. Society has a hard time entertaining the thought of false rape allegations. Most popular sources estimate 2 to 10 percent of accusations are false. The statistic only includes cases that are proven 100 percent to be false, either with the woman admitting she lied, or the guy has solid proof. That leaves a LOT of possibility for the false accusation rate to be much higher but people don't want to hear it. 

The accused should be anonymous until proven guilty, a rape allegation destroys a man's life because society will always see him as the rapist. It's also a gross injustice that a woman proven to have made a false claim usually suffers no punishment, even if an innocent guy spent time in prison as a result. In California, consensual sex between two drunk people is automatically rape. It literally implies that women are incapable of consenting while intoxicated, but a man is somehow impervious to alcohol. So if a couple have some wine and a romantic night of sex, she was raped according to the law. It's absolutely screwed up beyond comprehension that this is allowed. You  cannot make catch all draconian policies that destroy lives, in the pursuit of justice. Doing so leads to greater injustice. Listen and believe versus investigation and fair trial, as well as rights for the accused, is how in the old days, any white woman could yell rape at a random black man and he would be lynched on the spot, no questions asked. 

It's inaccurate to assume that I have no sympathy for real rape victims. It's a terrible thing, but that is no excuse to blindly believe every accuser, and condemn the accused automatically, without investigating and protecting the rights of the accuser and the accused, which is what the news media encourages.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×