Schrödinger Rapist, once again.

The lack of right not to be offended doesn't mean it's nice to be offended. It doesn't mean it's nice to offend, it means that no actual observable harm occurs when someone is offended. I'm offended by people who can't be bothered to learn simple apostrophe usage, but that doesn't give me the right to stop people getting apostrophe's wrong

The difference here, however, is one of privilege. A man gtting catcalled and a woman getting catcalled will have very different responses to the situation because of their position. However it's not about the numbers but about the perceived threat. An awful lot of the problem is the increased level of perceeived threat women are socially indoctrinated in to.

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:The lack of right not to be offended doesn't mean it's nice to be offended. It doesn't mean it's nice to offend, it means that no actual observable harm occurs when someone is offended. I'm offended by people who can't be bothered to learn simple apostrophe usage, but that doesn't give me the right to stop people getting apostrophe's wrong

The difference here, however, is one of privilege. A man gtting catcalled and a woman getting catcalled will have very different responses to the situation because of their position. However it's not about the numbers but about the perceived threat. An awful lot of the problem is the increased level of perceeived threat women are socially indoctrinated in to.

Again, the problem here is that the "level of perceived threat women are socially indoctrinated in to" (with regards SR) is suspect. I do not think that the membership of Atheism+ remotely represent even socially maligned and impoverished women in society.

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:The lack of right not to be offended doesn't mean it's nice to be offended. It doesn't mean it's nice to offend, it means that no actual observable harm occurs when someone is offended. I'm offended by people who can't be bothered to learn simple apostrophe usage, but that doesn't give me the right to stop people getting apostrophe's wrong

Well that's a fairly ridiculous analogy. Serious verbal abuse isn't the same thing as being annoyed by apostrophes. Neurological studies have shown that when subject to real verbal abuse, the same areas in the brain light up as when physical abuse occurs. Not wanting to get too philosophical or even neurological, but there really isn't the clear distinction between the mental and the physical that pop psychology would have you believe.

The key difference AFAIA is the level of evidentiality and falsifiability, anyone can claim any level of offense at anything, and there is no way of knowing if any harm has actually been done, physical harm is evident and therefore easier to weigh into moral considerations.

The evidence is there, it's just not widely known throughout society. Hence the derogatory reference to "pop psychology".

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:that doesn't give me the right to stop people getting apostrophe's wrong

Nor yourself, apparently.

ateisten wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:that doesn't give me the right to stop people getting apostrophe's wrong

Nor yourself, apparently.

Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.

ateisten wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:that doesn't give me the right to stop people getting apostrophe's wrong

Nor yourself, apparently.

Are you retarded? It seems that you are. It wasn't me who said that.

rEvolutionist wrote:Are you retarded? It seems that you are. It wasn't me who said that.

Right you are. Duly corrected. My apologies.

The Patrician wrote:Is you saying you'd like to do bodily harm to anyone, anything like me saying i'd like the state to kick anyone's head in?

Assuming you don't go around assaulting/raping women, no.

Given what my women friends have told me, four of them raped/assaulted, I don't think the fear of being raped is quite as irrational as some here are claiming. Do people think women don't talk to each other about what has happened to them? I'm certain the women in my circle of friends know about more cases of this than I do.

What my friends have told me make me believe that high rates of rape claimed by some studies are probably true.

Odd, what I got from my circle of friends seemed to mirror between males and females, and our group of friends contains several victims of Sexual assault, harassment and rape.

People take steps to feel safe, these steps are broadly the same and in the same situations. The fear is over different things, but the actions as a result are the same and the level of fear is the same.

ateisten wrote:

musashi wrote:I don't really care whether a woman thinks I'm a potential rapist or not

That's really weird.

It's the only part of the post I disagree with, and I'm guessing it's a matter of poor wording. I find it abhorrent to be viewed as a rapist based purely on my gender. If I'm acting like a creep, feel free to be freaked out, but if my mere existence makes you treat me like a rapist, I find that offensive.

Great post musashi.

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:The lack of right not to be offended doesn't mean it's nice to be offended. It doesn't mean it's nice to offend, it means that no actual observable harm occurs when someone is offended. I'm offended by people who can't be bothered to learn simple apostrophe usage, but that doesn't give me the right to stop people getting apostrophe's wrong

I can see why a society would want to lay down rules to stop being from harmfully offensive (inciting hate, public nudity, stuff like that), but I don't see why we'd need a special set of rules to stop people from being pricks.
Being a dick has its natural consequences: Avoidance and dirision by the rest of society.

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:The difference here, however, is one of privilege. A man gtting catcalled and a woman getting catcalled will have very different responses to the situation because of their position. However it's not about the numbers but about the perceived threat. An awful lot of the problem is the increased level of perceeived threat women are socially indoctrinated in to.

But if women want to be treated equally, why should men automatically conform to women's standards of catcalling comfort? Wouldn't the correct solution be to seek middle ground?

AliRadicali wrote:

ateisten wrote:

musashi wrote:I don't really care whether a woman thinks I'm a potential rapist or not

That's really weird.

It's the only part of the post I disagree with, and I'm guessing it's a matter of poor wording. I find it abhorrent to be viewed as a rapist based purely on my gender. If I'm acting like a creep, feel free to be freaked out, but if my mere existence makes you treat me like a rapist, I find that offensive.

I;ll agree with this, because at this point the concept is being applied beyond where it has any value.
I feel the same way when white women talk about "white men's privilege", since I'm mixed race and don't have a better opinion of white women as a group than I do of white men..

That may be the problem, confusing groups and individuals.

I've read a couple of legends, where it was said "a young woman could walk from one end of the land to the other naked and with a bag of gold in each hand, and no one would molest her for fear of the king's justice. Too bad real life isn't that way. and without the king's justice being needed.

I'd also like to add that although it's currently viewed as sexist and possibly misogynist to objectify women based on their looks, it's a perfectly natural biological imperative. Males of any species select their mates by looking at signs of fertility. For humans, that happens to be youth, wide hips, healthy skin and large breasts.
Females objectify men based on their ability to provide for- and protect them. We find it abhorrent and superficial when men like a woman for her looks, but when women objectify men based on wealth, status, accomplishments, that's not really seen as a problem.
I'm not saying we should excuse everyone for being lewd sexists, but I'm wondering if it's healthy for society to view male objectification of women as something inherently sinful, when it seems to be a natural part of our sexual instincts.

rEvolutionist wrote:
Ok, yeah, that's what I thought it meant. I don't subscribe to this. Society is a dynamic collection of individuals who need to have consideration for other people if it is going to work. Such an absolutist view as you espouse above is not very helpful or functional.

Well, it's not necessarily "nice ass" that is being said and done. In Australia a common call out is "show us your tits". And of course there is a LOT worse being said than that too. The reply to this is relevant to the answer I just gave above this. Words can harm as well. Harm can't be logically defended as only being physical. People can suffer psychological harm as well. And, if we want to get all navel gazing-y about it, everything is manifest in and by the mind. There's potentially very little difference between verbal and physical abuse (of a minor nature).

Where are you from, if you don't mind me asking? I can promise you that in Australia women are FAR more likely to be sexually harassed than men.

This just ignores the whole social dynamic that we all exist within. No man is an island...

Christianity and republicanism are a choice. Gender isn't (well, generally speaking). And even if we put that aside, an rational argument can be made that there are differences to criticise in religion vs atheism, and democrats vs republicans. But what difference are you attempting to criticise in women vs men?

So you think that you are wrong if you are offending people? Are you going to hide your atheism? Are you going to tell bigots that it's ok to be bigots? Are you going to tell homophobes that it's fine to oppress minorities? After all, you are offending them by calling them homophobes, bigots, etc. I really do not see how you can not see how your double standard is hypocritical.

Show us your tits is harmless. She can ignore it, say no, give a flippant response, etc. She could also avoid areas if she knows men in that area behave in that way. I don't go to Pattaya, despite some of the beautiful scenery, because of the behavior of the people (both foreigners and locals). I don't go to clubs and bars because I don't generally like the behavior of the people there. No one is dragging a woman in to a bar. Why do women go to bars? Is it not for the social aspects? Maybe they shouldn't go to bars that have social aspects they don't enjoy?

What you can't do is go to an area where you know people behave a certain way and then demand that they change to accommodate you. That's like the muslims who go to America and then get upset that and demand that we label our products as being haraam and not haraam.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sexualharassment/serious_business/sh_chap4.html#4_11
In the work place, 20% of reported harassment was against men. Given that men are culturally less likely to complain about sexual harassment, no I am sorry but your social bias is blinding you to the actual facts. Random search pulled up a figure that supports my previous estimation of 20%-50% (25% of reported).

Here's an example of a very annoying social bias. The "objectification of women". Yeah, men like beautiful women. So what? Do women enjoy attractive men any less? Nope. Look at MTV and tell me what do you see? Now, it is true that talented men tend to be taken more seriously than talented women. So you are more likely to see unattractive actors than actresses, for instance. Remove the goggles of feminist indoctrination that has inundated modern Western societies. Men ARE currently more oppressed than women in are. Feminism had its time and it accomplished many great things. Now it's time for true social justice; not focusing on the ills of one specific group.

Try this. Go watch the social dynamics at a bar for a few nights. Don't drink. Just hang out in a crowded active bar that has a decent mix of men and women and see how things play out. Yes, in a bar that is 90% men, of course the vast majority of harassers will be men. It's simple probability. Go find a proper sample size and observe. You may be shocked.

I spent 6 years as a nuke officer for the US navy (from America btw, but live in Indonesia atm). One of my regular duties was shore patrol. That's where I would put on my uniform and patrol the bars, clubs, etc. to make sure our sailors weren't getting into trouble. I also spent a decent amount of time in clubs and bars in the states (even some in Perth and Sydney more times than I can remember). Women caused just as many (relatively) of the problems as men when you adjusted for their lower representation in the bars.

Yes, of course you must be aware of the repercussions of your actions. I never said otherwise. I said you(unspecified you) do not have a right to not be offended. You do not have a right to not be creeped out, afraid, etc. If you don't want people to say things that might offend you, stay home or grow up.

AliRadicali wrote:I'd also like to add that although it's currently viewed as sexist and possibly misogynist to objectify women based on their looks, it's a perfectly natural biological imperative. Males of any species select their mates by looking at signs of fertility. For humans, that happens to be youth, wide hips, healthy skin and large breasts.
Females objectify men based on their ability to provide for- and protect them. We find it abhorrent and superficial when men like a woman for her looks, but when women objectify men based on wealth, status, accomplishments, that's not really seen as a problem.
I'm not saying we should excuse everyone for being lewd sexists, but I'm wondering if it's healthy for society to view male objectification of women as something inherently sinful, when it seems to be a natural part of our sexual instincts.

Just a little correction, they also objectify men on their looks.

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with finding women attractive or being able to enjoy the physical beauty of a woman. However, it is wrong to view women purely as sexual objects.

AliRadicali wrote:I'd also like to add that although it's currently viewed as sexist and possibly misogynist to objectify women based on their looks, it's a perfectly natural biological imperative. Males of any species select their mates by looking at signs of fertility. For humans, that happens to be youth, wide hips, healthy skin and large breasts.
Females objectify men based on their ability to provide for- and protect them. We find it abhorrent and superficial when men like a woman for her looks, but when women objectify men based on wealth, status, accomplishments, that's not really seen as a problem.
I'm not saying we should excuse everyone for being lewd sexists, but I'm wondering if it's healthy for society to view male objectification of women as something inherently sinful, when it seems to be a natural part of our sexual instincts.

While I kind of agree with what you are saying here... I think i've mentioned before that you need to be careful of falling into the naturalistic fallacy. That is, just because something is "natural" doesn't necessarily mean it is good. But of course, we can't go totally the other way either and claim that we should ignore our biological instincts. The right place is probably somewhere in the middle.

How's that for sitting on the fence?

Eldin Alvere wrote:Just a little correction, they also objectify men on their looks.
There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with finding women attractive or being able to enjoy the physical beauty of a woman. However, it is wrong to view women purely as sexual objects.

Of course women also look at a man's physical appearance. And of course, in present society, a man should look beyond a woman's looks/reproductive potential in selecting his girlfriend/wife, I'm merely suggesting that a certain difference in focus seems inevitable.

rEvolutionist wrote:While I kind of agree with what you are saying here... I think i've mentioned before that you need to be careful of falling into the naturalistic fallacy. That is, just because something is "natural" doesn't necessarily mean it is good. But of course, we can't go totally the other way either and claim that we should ignore our biological instincts. The right place is probably somewhere in the middle.

How's that for sitting on the fence?

I think when it comes to sexuality, there's quite a precedent that shows repressing our urges and instincts leads to harmful, destructive behaviour. One could argue that if society wasn't as weirdly prudish and PC as it is, there would be a lot less sexually frustrated men verbally harrassing and sexually assaulting people. It's kind of odd that women can walk around skimpily dressed but it's considered rude for a man to visibly notice or respond.

And honestly, it's not "the patriarchy" that dresses women when they go out. Women in bars wearing barely anything are presenting themselves as sexual objects. Why else are they there? If you want to be left alone by men, dressing a bit more conservatively wouldn't be entirely unreasonable would it?

Also inb4 "victim blaming".

You don't expect a gay bar to be accommodating to the demands of a homophobe. If you don't want to get hit on by strangers, maybe seedy taverns and bars are best avoided if you're a woman. And also, give guys some credit: they go to clubs to hook up and get laid, not to be jerks. If their dickish behavior scares off all the women, it's self-defeating behavior. The negative feedback will presumably correct it.

Eldin Alvere wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
Ok, yeah, that's what I thought it meant. I don't subscribe to this. Society is a dynamic collection of individuals who need to have consideration for other people if it is going to work. Such an absolutist view as you espouse above is not very helpful or functional.

Well, it's not necessarily "nice ass" that is being said and done. In Australia a common call out is "show us your tits". And of course there is a LOT worse being said than that too. The reply to this is relevant to the answer I just gave above this. Words can harm as well. Harm can't be logically defended as only being physical. People can suffer psychological harm as well. And, if we want to get all navel gazing-y about it, everything is manifest in and by the mind. There's potentially very little difference between verbal and physical abuse (of a minor nature).

Where are you from, if you don't mind me asking? I can promise you that in Australia women are FAR more likely to be sexually harassed than men.

This just ignores the whole social dynamic that we all exist within. No man is an island...

Christianity and republicanism are a choice. Gender isn't (well, generally speaking). And even if we put that aside, an rational argument can be made that there are differences to criticise in religion vs atheism, and democrats vs republicans. But what difference are you attempting to criticise in women vs men?

So you think that you are wrong if you are offending people? Are you going to hide your atheism? Are you going to tell bigots that it's ok to be bigots? Are you going to tell homophobes that it's fine to oppress minorities? After all, you are offending them by calling them homophobes, bigots, etc. I really do not see how you can not see how your double standard is hypocritical.

Once again, the examples you give are not analogous to the situation of women being sexually harassed. Why you keep failing to get this has me wondering exactly what you are on about. I'll break it down for you with your examples: Not telling someone you are an atheist is not the same as calling a women a slut or touching up her tits; Bigots and homophobes are, well, bigots and homophobes. Social mores are pretty set that these types are undesirable in a civilised society. Are women undesirable in a civilised society? Of course not, hence why your analogy fails.

Show us your tits is harmless.

In your opinion. How do you know this is true?

She can ignore it, say no, give a flippant response, etc. She could also avoid areas if she knows men in that area behave in that way.

Or men could just stop acting that way.

I don't go to Pattaya, despite some of the beautiful scenery, because of the behavior of the people (both foreigners and locals). I don't go to clubs and bars because I don't generally like the behavior of the people there. No one is dragging a woman in to a bar. Why do women go to bars? Is it not for the social aspects? Maybe they shouldn't go to bars that have social aspects they don't enjoy?

I think you're right. They should just stay at home in the kitchen where they belong.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sexualharassment/serious_business/sh_chap4.html#4_11
In the work place, 20% of reported harassment was against men. Given that men are culturally less likely to complain about sexual harassment, no I am sorry but your social bias is blinding you to the actual facts. Random search pulled up a figure that supports my previous estimation of 20%-50% (25% of reported).

What? No it doesn't. You just pulled 50% out of your arse.

Here's an example of a very annoying social bias. The "objectification of women". Yeah, men like beautiful women. So what? Do women enjoy attractive men any less? Nope.

I don't think anyone has any problem with people objectifying other people (well, perhaps the rad fems do), and I certainly don't. But they need to keep it to themselves, or a private setting where the situation is right.

Look at MTV and tell me what do you see? Now, it is true that talented men tend to be taken more seriously than talented women. So you are more likely to see unattractive actors than actresses, for instance. Remove the goggles of feminist indoctrination that has inundated modern Western societies. Men ARE currently more oppressed than women in are. Feminism had its time and it accomplished many great things. Now it's time for true social justice; not focusing on the ills of one specific group.

[my emphasis]

What a load of fucking bollocks. Sorry, but you've lost any credibility that you might have had.

Try this. Go watch the social dynamics at a bar for a few nights. Don't drink. Just hang out in a crowded active bar that has a decent mix of men and women and see how things play out. Yes, in a bar that is 90% men, of course the vast majority of harassers will be men. It's simple probability. Go find a proper sample size and observe. You may be shocked.

I think it's pretty clear you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. I drove taxis at nights for years and saw exactly how the social dynamics at bars and clubs work. You are simply flat out wrong. And besides, this issue is about more than just going out drinking at night.

I spent 6 years as a nuke officer for the US navy (from America btw, but live in Indonesia atm). One of my regular duties was shore patrol. That's where I would put on my uniform and patrol the bars, clubs, etc. to make sure our sailors weren't getting into trouble. I also spent a decent amount of time in clubs and bars in the states (even some in Perth and Sydney more times than I can remember). Women caused just as many (relatively) of the problems as men when you adjusted for their lower representation in the bars.

I don't know what century this was in, but in the current one, in Australia, the mix is in women's favour (i.e. there's more women out than men).

Yes, of course you must be aware of the repercussions of your actions. I never said otherwise. I said you(unspecified you) do not have a right to not be offended.

I know you said it, and I explained why it is a stupid position to hold. And you didn't respond to that, so I'm not sure why you are just bleating out the same shit over again. Well, actually, I have a fairly good idea, going by some of your ridiculous statements above.

F'ck f'nce s'tt'ng. ''v' d'c'd'd t' b'c'm' 'n 'p'str'ph' r'd'c'l! N' m'r' v'w'ls f'r m', N' s'r! 'nly 'p'str'ph''s fr'm n'w 'n.

AliRadicali wrote:

Eldin Alvere wrote:Just a little correction, they also objectify men on their looks.
There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with finding women attractive or being able to enjoy the physical beauty of a woman. However, it is wrong to view women purely as sexual objects.

Of course women also look at a man's physical appearance. And of course, in present society, a man should look beyond a woman's looks/reproductive potential in selecting his girlfriend/wife, I'm merely suggesting that a certain difference in focus seems inevitable.

rEvolutionist wrote:While I kind of agree with what you are saying here... I think i've mentioned before that you need to be careful of falling into the naturalistic fallacy. That is, just because something is "natural" doesn't necessarily mean it is good. But of course, we can't go totally the other way either and claim that we should ignore our biological instincts. The right place is probably somewhere in the middle.

How's that for sitting on the fence?

I think when it comes to sexuality, there's quite a precedent that shows repressing our urges and instincts leads to harmful, destructive behaviour.

Yeah, but that's a false dichotomy. I thought I kind of made it clear that it's not binary. A mix of both is fine.

One could argue that if society wasn't as weirdly prudish and PC as it is, there would be a lot less sexually frustrated men verbally harrassing and sexually assaulting people.

It's a possibility, but without any evidence backing it up, it doesn't serve much to make that claim.

It's kind of odd that women can walk around skimpily dressed but it's considered rude for a man to visibly notice or respond.

And honestly, it's not "the patriarchy" that dresses women when they go out. Women in bars wearing barely anything are presenting themselves as sexual objects. Why else are they there? If you want to be left alone by men, dressing a bit more conservatively wouldn't be entirely unreasonable would it?

Also inb4 "victim blaming".

I'm setting myself up to get caned as well, but I kind of agree with this too. I am very mindful that I don't engage in victim blaming, and there really isn't an excuse for sexual assault no matter what the women is or isn't wearing; but I just don't get this argument that states that women dress like that for themselves. I'm happy to hear arguments in support of this, and I will try to keep an open mind, but as of this point in my life, I haven't really managed to understand this view.

W'm'n c'n g't ' c'n'f'd'nc' b''st fr'm dr'ss'ng 'p. R'm'mb'r h'll'w''n? 't's k'nd' l'k' th't.