and since that day you never leave house without ample supply of pot on you?
Woman in tight clothes walks around NYC with camera crew, Is shocked men talk to her. :rolleyes:
- Thread starter curr3n_c1000
- Start date
LOL! You never know when it might be a babe magnet.and since that day you never leave house without ample supply of pot on you?
This makes me wonder what the definition of a 'Legit' reason to speak to a stranger is:
1) Your hair is on fire- I would suggest would be for her safety and legit.
2) You are very pretty- She probably knows this, but I would suggest it's harmless
3) Your dress is tucked into your panties-Dangerous but the thing a gentleman should do
4) Smile- Dangerous.
5) Your face is so pretty but it would be prettier with my cum all over it- Save it for the Strip Club
6) Wanna fuck- I wouldn't till she's back at your place.
7)I'm rich- Always safe, and always works.
1) Your hair is on fire- I would suggest would be for her safety and legit.
2) You are very pretty- She probably knows this, but I would suggest it's harmless
3) Your dress is tucked into your panties-Dangerous but the thing a gentleman should do
4) Smile- Dangerous.
5) Your face is so pretty but it would be prettier with my cum all over it- Save it for the Strip Club
6) Wanna fuck- I wouldn't till she's back at your place.
7)I'm rich- Always safe, and always works.
Usually to ask for the time and/or directions. The weird thing is when I ask a M/F couple, it is almost always the F who answers.
You were not there so don’t try to suggest something else. First, we walked right past him while we were walking from our car and him to his. He made his comment when he was alone and NO ONE else around us. When I turned around he was at his car with his friend sitting in the passenger seat. This only takes seconds to assess the situation and with my SO there I decided not to say something. Why put her in potential danger.
The guy was an asshole and that is the reason for his comment
Pretty sure I saw a comedy show do a comparison of #6 on Yonge St. across from the Eaton Centre years ago. Guy on one side of the street and a girl on the other. Surprisingly enough, the girl didn't get as many "hell ya's" as I expected. Can't find a clip of it, and can't even remember the name of the show. /sigh, I hate the feeling of getting old.
Wow, he must be fast as hell. He got to and in his car in the time it took you to turn around? Also, I didn't suggest anything other than that he may have been speaking to someone when he made the comment. And if you try to tell me that you have never commented to a companion on a ladies looks while walking in public I will absolutely call you a liar. EVERYONE has done it, man or woman. If you have any class it is said so the person it is about doesn't overhear but the comment would still be made.
And, if you told the guy to watch his language when speaking about a lady I'm betting SHE wouldn't be in danger. You might need some dental work done afterwards but that's a different conversation.
Yet you were not posting in general to the thread. You quoted my post which means you were replying to what I wrote specifically.
And if you read her posts she indicated any form of expression from a man was unacceptable. Good or bad.
And if you read my response, you know the one you quoted, I was clearly using the example of telling a woman she looks beautiful, and the fact that women consider that creepy based on who is saying it, not what or how it is said. The fact that you consider such a benign example of courtship "creepy" just proves my point.
Yes, and you did that by putting words in my mouth, that I never wrote, simply to bolster your point. Many people take issue with that tactic.
I simply countered your point using the logic you presented in it. Is this not a discussion?
Aggressive? If you call trying to keep the record straight, when someone keeps putting words in your mouth, or utilizing someone's own logic to counter their point aggressive, then maybe you should refrain from taking part in stimulating social discussions.
You're mischaracterizing what I said and what Jenesis said to defend catcalls and what appears to be unwanted sexual advances that she terms harassment.
Its seems your argument is that you should be able to harass women because you think they dressed sexily for you, as if the very act of you thinking someone is 'sexy' means you can harass them for 'courtship'.
Now you seem offended that Jenesis and others might find that creepy, and you seem to think the issue is with the women not with your behaviour.
And you seem mad that I pointed out why your 'courtship' may be creepy.
Stedon nailed, you should read his post.
How did I mischaracterize what Jenesis said? Did she not make it clear that she thinks men shouldn't be allowed to to say anything to a woman, regardless of how benign the content or the tone? Was that not what I was replying to?
And where exactly did I defend catcalls exactly? There you go putting words in people's mouths again. I, in fact, stated multiple times that lewd and crass comments and manners be excluded from the discussion, because everyone can agree they have no place.
As for what you said, I didn't mischaracterize anything. You went on some tirade about me supporting insults, which I specifically said had no place, and then went on some dissertation about the word sexy. Not really sure why you did that in a response to my post, where I never once used the word "sexy" as an example in my argument.
I then simply applied your logic regarding the word "sexy", which was hugely flawed by the way, to show just how flawed it was. Because if you apply your flawed logic regarding the word "sexy" to women who themselves say they dress a certain way to feel it. Then that logic when re-applied back to men, completely shoots itself in the foot. The only way your logic towards the word "sexy" holds up on both sides is when you apply a double standard, which proves the logic was flawed in the first place.
It is a simple analytical exercise.
Look who is mischaracterizing.
My argument is harassment, in the absolute and unyielding terms Jenesis put it, is subjective, and changes from woman to woman to woman, and also changes based not on the words or the delivery, but on the level of attractiveness of the person saying it. As per my example of different types of men calling a woman beautiful.
As such no one can demand that their right to be subjectively offended, trumps other people's right to express themselves.
Such is written in both our charter of rights, and the Constitution in the States. You have the right to freedom of expression. There is no such right to never be offended in your life. Because in many cases, the only person who controls what they find offensive that day is them.
Nope. I'm just amazed that you still don't see the double standard in your argument even after it has been painstakingly demonstrated multiple times.
Look, if you can't understand why Jenesis and I both think you mischaracterized her statement, how can you think you understand women enough to know that what you consider 'courtship' isn't really just 'harassment'?
Arguing that whether you can do it or not based on your attractiveness is just another form of Trump's pussygrabbing speech, where he says he can do it because he's rich and can get away with it while you seem to be arguing that its ok if you're hot.
I agree people can be creepy. attractive people are more likely to be considered not creepy though. statistically attractive people have more success in life than non attractive. their looks influence people and I would say some people perceive them in a better light than non attractive(perhaps more confident and capable).
are we talking about the policies and procedure over the line or what actually happens at work? sexuality in the work place is rampant. so many of my coworkers were fucking at work and after hours. I think the dynamics of the workplace have changed. if someone finds another person attractive they can get away with so much. its a total disaster waiting to happen.
people are going to behave whatever way they want. some will be successful with their behavior some will not. as far as being unsafe. feelings of being unsafe do not necessarily equate to being unsafe. hence why not all work refusals for unsafe working conditions are actually legitimately unsafe. there is a process which investigates this. unfortunately in our own personal life there is not a mechanism to review the conditions. we go by how we feel which may not necessarily be accurate to the situation.
just because a guy comes up to a woman, offends a woman and makes her feel unsafe does not make her situation unsafe. feeling are not facts, and I really wish people would stop thinking their feelings are fasts.
Just how would a woman know for sure that a person she DOESN’T KNOW AND who gives her unwanted attention and comments is safe. Any type of reaction or non-reaction can set them off.
Interesting. When I ask for proof and examples of how I exactly mischaracterized the words she herself wrote, many times in fact, you respond not with such examples, but with "Well if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you".
Typical juvenile response when a person can't produce the proof and examples they have been asked for.
Are you also going take your ball and go home?
Also, my example is not of someone doing something that is still received negatively by the recipient, yet not punished, as was Trumps actions. It was an example of someone doing something that is fully accepted and embraced by the recipient. Just because of the perceived quality of who did it. Not what was done. You still seem to have issues grasping that concept. What someone finds offensive is largely subjective. They control what offends them, and it is largely dictated on things that are outside the control of the person who supposedly offended them.
Again, aside from universally accepted negative behaviour and comments.
This is why there are no rights in our charter guaranteeing to never be offended.
Last edited:
I think the mistake she made was not virtue signaling clearly enough. Although womens' M.O. is obvious enough.
Fine, this is one post where you mischaracterize what Jenesis said.
She says why she dresses sexy and you say she is wrong, she's dressing for you and therefore its your right to harass her (as she terms it).
That is mischaracterizing what she said, claiming she really mean the opposite.
Yes, what you are using as an example is exactly what Jenesis says is not wanted by most women, and worse, you seem to think that if you think you're hot then its totally fine 'cuz you think you'll get away with it.
Again, this is your justification.
You forget the most important part of this equation.
Its not the 'creep', or self declared hot guy who gets to say whether their words and actions are harassment.
Its the women they approach.
Jenesis says its harassment, you say its your right.
Imagine if that were the defence at an actual sexual assault trial, 'your honour, she dressed sexy so she was asking for it and I'm a hot guy so its totally acceptable'.
You really need to look at a dictionary once in a while.
That is not Mischaracterizing. That is simply disagreeing. Her word choice contradicted her own statement, and I simply pointed that out. And because I don't feel like taking you through that particular logic exercise again, I simply quote my post.
Actually that was also verified by Jenesis as well.
And that is subjective to factors only she controls. Like what side of the bed she woke up on. How good of a day she is having.
Not if the man is "self declared" hot. Again, putting words in my mouth. But whether the woman finds the man attractive or not.
See, here is the most important part of this equation you are forgetting.
Women like Jenesis don't want to be judged by their looks and sexual attractiveness, or have any reactions of others predicated on those judgments.
Yet if a woman receives an unsolicited, benign compliment, from a person they themselves have judged to be sexually attractive, their reactions will be different than if it was from someone they didn't find sexually attractive.
So while they are adamant that no one else should judge them on their sexual attractiveness, and have reactions predicated on that judgment, they themselves should be fully allowed to have their reactions predicated on how they judge the sexual attractiveness of someone else.
That is called hypocrisy.
Imagine if a woman flags down a police officer, points to a man across the street and says she wants him arrested for sexual harassment. The Cop asks what happened, and she proceeds to tell him that when she walked by, the man said in a neutral tone, that she "looks beautiful".
Do you think the Cop would arrest him? Do you think a court would convict him?
That's the example I gave. I never mentioned sexual assault. But again, you like to put words in people's mouths
That is an apples to apples comparison.
Can we keep me out of it? I am done with this thread and words are being put in my mouth and some things I have said are being taken out if context.
I don't want to debate this anymore, so I don't want to correct and clarify either.
Not trying to be rude. Just done with the convo now.
I don't want to debate this anymore, so I don't want to correct and clarify either.
Not trying to be rude. Just done with the convo now.
