The real agenda about the sexual scandal hypersensitivity

Okay, lets do something really crazy and think about why women are 'hypersensitive' to trivial comments. Every time someone gets catcalled or someone gets touched without their consent, that could be the start of something much worse. People, especially women, get sexually harassed all the time. It would be stupid to let one instance slide because a guy "mean't it as a compliment" when statistically there's a fair chance it could lead to what you call real harassment. People say 'not all men' but how are you supposed to know which ones aren't going to hurt you?

"Customarily sexual relations are initiated by men and accepted by females. It’s a bit like a contract, an offer followed by acceptance or decline."

Yeah, except when men won't take no for an answer. Except when your at work where your job is to assist in running the ****ing country. That's interfering with a job, willingly interfering with their life. That's not okay.

Oh, you can't say boo to a goose, that's so tragic. Sometimes women are mean to men in self-defence because they don't want to be sexually violated, oh how dare they. God, that must be so hard for guys.

(and if we're talking parliament, they're not post-modernists)

There are several point here:

1 I do see your point and your point clearly works for some circumstances particular for certain creepy types - yes I get it.

2. I personally don’t feel I can’t say boo to a goose. You can probably see from my posts on here how outspoken I am, but I’m sure men in parliament feel that can’t say boo to a goose. Your response “so who cares if you can’t say boo to a goose” - it’s very unempathetic. Society has primed you as as a so called oppressed group (blacks / females / gays / Muslims) to be able to have an attitude toward so called oppressor / privileged groups (men / whites / Christians) therefore you can treat such a group with disregard - which is the sentiment you conveyed. These men who will just sit there and be spoken to like that - not near men- same with women who accept rhetoric about whites being terrible, or Christians who accept the politically correct claptrap about Christianity - they are a bunch of cowards. You are not more important than a man for being a woman - and you should internally examine your attitudes here.

3. But you have to admit we are talking about people on another planet here - someone getting worked up some trivial thing said 15 or 20 years ago in some cases. You’re not going to tell me that’s normal behaviour are you? Normal people have never acted like that.

There is something very odd going on, like someone has put something in the cool aid so to speak.

4. The good thing is that it’s causing an implosion at the political nerve centre which is the place that is responsible for the perpetuation of all the postmodern insanity: stopping male / female in case it offends transgenders, or claiming that race and gender are above all social constructs, jailing people for offensive tweets (only “oppressor” groups offending “oppressed” groups). These are the same people who were too frightened to tackle grooming gangs out of fear of being called racist - so it’s great that their crazy theory is collapsing them! I laugh all the way 😂😂😂

5. And last, yes parliamentarians are postmodernist today. They almost all subscribe to the postmodernist ideas of logocentricism, the kind of critical theory critique of traditional society (they use terms like “challenging traditional stereotypes”), identity politics and group. (And espousing ideologies which promote independent free thought but hating it when someone like me does actually think independently and freely).

What you mentioned about grooming gangs made me think that perhaps we're both generalising too much? The whole thing about that case was that the girl who reported them used a racial slur to refer to them. That issue should have been treated individually, because it was complicated and specific. Maybe the same goes for harassment cases, you can't generalise them because your conclusion just won't be correct. It's not right for me to be apathetic because perhaps their are men who are intimidated by the cases, in the same way it's not right for you to generalise politicians as post-modernists and all that stuff.

That said, I did mention previously that its understandable for women to generalise men when it comes to creepy things at work (the whole 'I'm not taking any chances in-case this gets worse) thing, but maybe that's different? I guess there's a difference between saying no and then taking in further if it turns into harassment, and flipping your **** and generally being irrational about it.

Then again, how often do women 'flip their ****' over nothing? I think our views are easily skewed about this because we hear about the loudest most controversial things. For example, you won't know if 'almost all' politicians are post-modernist because you don't hear about almost all of them, most of them don't speak publicly unless it's to-do with their specific job. The same could be said for sexual harassment cases, I bet we don't hear about all of those because scandals and drama are really bad for political climates so they sort it out and keep it on the low.

Side note: I don't think I'm more important because I'm a woman. I think I got angry because misinterpreted your tone (that's the trouble with debating over text). I acknowledge that "some people might have this issue but my issue is way harder" is a counter-productive argument.

Who cares if the girl who reported them used a racial tone. That’s what human beings do naturally. This whole point about generalising, the liberal ideology claims to hate generalising yet like most liberal thing, this goes one way. It’s terrible to generalise women, blacks, Muslims and gays but fine to generalise whites, men, Christians. If you refer to terrible backward Christian Southern American men you get a medal from most liberals - hence this normalises arguments like we need to look after women and who cares if it creates a hostile environment for men.

Well the thinking behind many of the statements and logic used in politics today seems to fit the postmodern narrative.

Most of this is because this is the mentality of the people creating this ideology:



I’m really talking about some very specific people and these specific stories in the Parliament. This is like dysfunctional programmed behaviour - often over nothing.

I didn’t say women flip their **** over nothing. They don’t - unless they are social justice warriors. Those women creating a scene in parliament over some trifle are exactly that: social justice warriors, (also known as snowflakes).

Ok you got angry - perhaps it’s because I am writing in a slightly ridiculous to incendiary tone because I’m trying to flip the script on political correctness because it’s a mental illness.

The thing with the girl and the grooming gang is that when she reported it to the police, she used a racial slur to describe the men, so the police didn't take her seriously. I'm saying that both parties are wrong in that scenario and I think it's hard to use as an example because it's an awkward and specific case. It wasn't right for her to be racist, but it obviously wasn't right for the police to think she wasn't being genuine. Again, both parties are wrong in that situation, it's too rare a situation to think of it as a reflection of a wider trend in society.

I think with minorities generalising people, it's more like they use the word 'white' to describe the racist people, because it's just easier to say. For example, when you look at a table you'd describe that as "I'm seeing a table." rather than "The light bouncing off this table is hitting my eye and being translated through my retina into my brain." I think a minority of minority groups actually generalise white people, or men, or religious groups. It's simply easier to hyperbole.

I'm not saying that you said that women flip their **** over nothing, I think I worded my point poorly. I agree that people shouldn't make a big deal over things when it isn't necessary or the best way to handle something, but I'd argue that it's not as common as you're making it out to be. It seems like a big issue because the media knows news like that will sell.

I'm also saying that I was wrong to get angry because it's a waste of time,. It's really hard to find common ground when being confrontational, and that was counter-productive of me.

However, I don't think being too politically correct is a mental illness. I think its an expected reaction to a problem, because times are changing and people are working out where they stand. There are always deeper reasons why people chose to speak out years after an incident, or why they overact to something small. Maybe they wouldn't have been taken seriously at the time, or now it's relevant to a conversation, or there have been lots of smaller recurring incidents throughout their career and one pushed them over the edge. It's an emotional response, but it's not mental illness.

2. Hypersensitivity - an overreaction about a trivial comment for example

This is a typical male comment from someone who doesn't understand how undermining and derogatory language and supposedly harmless banter can affect someone's self esteem and confidence.

If I ever meet you I will be sure to dismiss your opinion whilst putting my hand on your knee.

This is a typical male comment from someone who doesn't understand how undermining and derogatory language and supposedly harmless banter can affect someone's self esteem and confidence.

If I ever meet you I will be sure to dismiss your opinion whilst putting my hand on your knee.

At college a female touched my shoulder was I sexually harassed?

Oh my fellow snowflake ❄️, people are getting acid attacked in this town. I would hardly get worried about someone touching my knee.

At college a female touched my shoulder was I sexually harassed?

Look up the word grope when you have stopped being melodramatic.

Look at what you said, you said touching a knee is wrong why is my shoulder being touched completely different?

You should do what the woman you are claiming was sexually harassed has said people making a big deal of it should do and “get a grip”

As a man who was sexually harassed at work by another man - I find your comments rather sad and pathetic. You seem to be denying that there is such a thing as sexual harassment or the resulting depression and anxiety it causes exists. If you have nothing constructive to add, I suggest you say nothing.

Sexual harassment is not just about touching. It is about power. It is about the fact that the person doing the touching, shoulder, knee or more has complete control and power over the person receiving it.

The knee touching incident wasn’t sexual harassment, when your ‘victim’ is telling you to get a grip you don’t really have much of a case to say otherwise

Agreed. But just because one person is saying, "Get a grip," does not mean that it isn't a "thing". Would you deny the existence of a broken arm because someone with a broken arm were stating it as " just a flesh wound and that other people with broken arms should just get a grip."?

It is true that in the current sexual scandals of Westminster, what we do have is a lot of allegations and they are just that. But when a senior minister resigns without much of a fight over said allegations, that sends quite a powerful message. It also wouldn't surprise me for a second if sexual harassment wasn't at epidemic proportions in the Palace of Westminster. I am sure the truth will creep out over the coming months.

Then you clearly have no idea what sexual harassment in the workplace is, or the effects and impact it has on its victims.

There could be more that he has done but the hand on the knee thing is not sexual harassment, it’s not just one random person it was your alleged victim, how can you say it’s sexual harassment when the ‘victim’ is laughing at people saying it is? I’ve not seen anyone say that all the allegations are sexual harassment just people saying some of them aren’t.

It’s not really like a broken arm because like you say a broken arm is a yes or a no whereas sexual harassment is a lot more subjective, if 2 people have sex and both say it’s not rape would you then also claim rape?