Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The real agenda about the sexual scandal hypersensitivity Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    You seem to relying on this concept “appropriate”. What defies appropriate? I think your definition of appropriate is “if the women likes it”. We both have the same premise that appropriate sexual conduct is with two consenting adults. Someone has to initiate sexual conduct from a conversion - that’s how it works, and society expects it to be the man. I had a situation years ago where a woman I met wanted to talk and hand out but not sexual relations which is fine. I didn’t realise that initially and made a small move which she stopped. Absolutely fine, but in some of these situations it seems man are being severely punished.

    So tell me if a man initiated something physical and is rejected - is he an actual person whose life needs to be ruined?

    Your second part, we don’t need to go into what is acceptable to the majority v unacceptable because I’m talking about the acceptable and normal processes between people that have always taken place and will always take place.

    What you essentially want to do is to build a weapon to be able to clobber men over the head with simply because they are in the position that they need to initiate sexual relations.
    Your “act first, ask later” approach is definitely creepy. And yes, if you’re initiating unwanted physical contact then you ought to be punished lest you continue to escalate your inappropriate behaviour and violate people’s personal space. I don’t give a flying **** about ruining a creep’s life when in the real world, women have to be on the edge all the time: https://m.mic.com/articles/135394/14...-it#.TtJz5aMBg
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    How do you know if someone is going to want to be touched and it is too some extent appropriate for some minor touching when you care about each other(it need not be anything sexual at all) and maybe the employee's sad about something.

    I think that you know if someone touches you on your knee and you don't like it then yes they have stepped over the mark but it is normally an honest mistake and they didn't mean too hurt you. What you should normally do is just say you don't like it and most of these people doing it are not nasty they would probably normally accept this and move on. If they don't then thats sexual harassment.

    I think the last part is very important the accused needs to have actually have had malicious intent its not enough for the victim to be offended and not like what you have done. People are acting as if stepping over the line in relationships/friendships is unusual its happens in a variety of different ways(usually nothing to do with sexual harassment but its just an example) and people forgive them because they normally didn't mean to do anything wrong. Note this obviously doesn't apply if they sexually assault you as they have no right to touch those areas without consent.
    Ignorance has never been an excuse in law. Like ByEeek said, it’s common sense and decency to refrain from touching people in an inappropriate manner. The everyday bumps and jolts in public, as well as tapping someone’s shoulder to get their attention, are all acceptable as defined by the law.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Oh no, poor touchy man It’s so hard to keep your hands to yourself these days, right? Silly feminists have ruined everything. We can’t even slap a woman’s arse in clubs now. Back then it was just harmless fun with complimentary undertones! The regressive Marxist lefty liberal feminist Jew SJWs have truly taken over! Don’t they know a man is physically incapable of asking someone out in an appropriate manner?!

    Thank you for bringing this postmodern social theory conspiracy against men to my attention, old chap. Keep challenging ((them)).
    Hate to tell you but I have my family and a small number of friends both male and female who can engage intellectually and can think for themselves. I have no interest engaging personally with most people or touching them. In fact I don’t really need to see the type of women who want to show to much - I don’t need to see their body parts.

    No I am not talking about slapping people in the arse, I am talking about situations in the news where is seems men were simply sometimes attempting a first move. The female could have simply declined them. It’s simply oppression to dehumanise and ruin their lives for being rejected.

    You must be very angry that you’re basically a dinosaur.

    The Trump movement is a reality and we are rejecting all of your social justice warrior beliefs of agendas and double standards. And what happens in America eventually comes here.

    It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t treat people with respect. Of course people should be treated with respect.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Your “act first, ask later” approach is definitely creepy. And yes, if you’re initiating unwanted physical contact then you ought to be punished lest you continue to escalate your inappropriate behaviour and violate people’s personal space. I don’t give a flying **** about ruining a creep’s life when in the real world, women have to be on the edge all the time: https://m.mic.com/articles/135394/14...-it#.TtJz5aMBg
    And thats the problem your lack of empathy for other people. I wouldn't want someone to get in trouble if they meant no wrong and simply had made a mistake.

    I think this sort of attitude seems to think humans are perfect and that they don't ever make mistakes and its probably hypocritical because most of the people saying these sorts of things have made mistakes too.

    It's just Women that have to be on edge all the time in the real world?:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/think...t-of-date.html

    Actually, as the above link shows men are more likely to be victims of violence and even with domestic violence whilst women do get murdered more and experience more domestic violence than men the ratio is quite close.

    Do you know why there is so much violence/domestic violence? because people aren't looking at things from other people's perspective, they aren't being agreeable and forgiving people if they maybe made a mistake.

    It is those sorts of people that are quick to label themselves as victims and others as perpetrators that are probably much more likely to be violent and abusive thats what I think.

    That by no means is saying we should tolerate actual sexual harassment(when men wouldn't accept no not simply just making sexual advances) or sexual assault and rape.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    Hate to tell you but I have my family and a small number of friends both male and female who can engage intellectually and can think for themselves. I have no interest engaging personally with most people or touching them. In fact I don’t really need to see the type of women who want to show to much - I don’t need to see their body parts.
    That’s nice. But I still don’t see the relevance of what you’d personally do, or your preferences with respect to what women wear as if showing “to much” is a de facto consent to physical contact.

    No I am not talking about slapping people in the arse, I am talking about situations in the news where is seems men were simply sometimes attempting a first move. The female could have simply declined them. It’s simply oppression to dehumanise and ruin their lives for being rejected.
    Hey man, women get their arses slapped in clubs everyday! It’s part of the “normal” male-female interaction dynamic, right? Stop oppressing the lads who engage in such harmless banter

    You still don’t get it, do you? If you don’t want to be penalised for inappropriate conduct, then don’t do it. If you want to ask someone out, do so in an appropriate manner in a relevant setting and situation. It’s really not that hard to keep your hands off someone’s knees.


    The Trump movement is a reality and we are rejecting all of your social justice warrior beliefs of agendas and double standards. And what happens in America eventually comes here.
    Oh great, soon we’ll have people grabbing them by their pussies, that’ll show the Marxists! :facepalm: There is no “Trump” movement. The bulk of those who voted for him (Republicans) did so based on economic concerns and/or because he was the “lesser of the two evils” in their eyes. His enthusiastic, alt-reich supporters are mostly basement-dwellers who look like this: Name:  AE47AAC3-CC12-4BA9-86DB-61EB0F667DEB.jpeg
Views: 17
Size:  34.2 KB

    Trust me, I’m not too concerned about a bunch of misfits on r/incels and r/TheRedPill who struggle to interact with women and then ***** about getting rejected.

    It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t treat people with respect. Of course people should be treated with respect.
    Sweet. Too bad your actions say otherwise.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    And thats the problem your lack of empathy for other people. I wouldn't want someone to get in trouble if they meant no wrong and simply had made a mistake.

    I think this sort of attitude seems to think humans are perfect and that they don't ever make mistakes and its probably hypocritical because most of the people saying these sorts of things have made mistakes too.

    It's just Women that have to be on edge all the time in the real world?:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/think...t-of-date.html

    Actually, as the above link shows men are more likely to be victims of violence and even with domestic violence whilst women do get murdered more and experience more domestic violence than men the ratio is quite close.

    Do you know why there is so much violence/domestic violence? because people aren't looking at things from other people's perspective, they aren't being agreeable and forgiving people if they maybe made a mistake.

    It is those sorts of people that are quick to label themselves as victims and others as perpetrators that are probably much more likely to be violent and abusive thats what I think.

    That by no means is saying we should tolerate actual sexual harassment(when men wouldn't accept no not simply just making sexual advances) or sexual assault and rape.
    1) it’s not hard to refrain from touching others in a manner that can be interpreted as inappropriate. You really don’t have to be a perfect human to achieve this feat, trust me.

    2) Your stats about violent crime in general are irrelevant to the topic at hand: sexual harassment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    1) it’s not hard to refrain from touching others in a manner that can be interpreted as inappropriate. You really don’t have to be a perfect human to achieve this feat, trust me.

    2) Your stats about violent crime in general are irrelevant to the topic at hand: sexual harassment.
    Let’s be clear, people who go around clubs randomly touching strangers, or people who should obscenities at people are idiots. Simple as.

    What we are saying is that there is situation in the male / female dynamics whereby men make a clumsy or mistaken sexual approach which is then rejected.

    You seem to be saying it’s OK to ruin these men’s lives over this.

    It is not Ok. It a complete lack of empathy for a person who is behaving like everyone else behaves.

    Let me put it another way for unempathetic agenda driven people. Man is talk to a women and makes a sexual move. It is accepted and both live happily ever after. The second story, it is rejected. Why would you want to ruin the guys life?

    I will tell you why. Because under your theory of life there are oppressor groups (males, whites, Christians) and oppressed grounds (females, blacks, gays, Muslims) and when you pitch them against each other you want to always uplift the oppressed group and punish the oppressor group. For example a judge gets one of those Christian ethnics versus gay ethnics cases, almost always he will go to uphold the gay ethnics.

    For this reason you have no empathy for a man who simply made a rejected advance. You have convinced yourselves to think that the polish on the woman’s shoe is more important than the man’s entire life.

    Basically you’re an unempathetic bigot. It’s no different to a recent episode at a Canadian university where someone put up a posted saying “It’s OK to
    Be white”. It was called a racist incidental and the police were called.

    You are bigot s to men and probably bigoted to whites and Christians. You are probably one of those people who want to give someone a medal if they refer to Southern White American Christians as as backward inbreds while saying Islam is a shining beacon of civilisation.

    You’re just basically one of a large bunch of bigots. You just think you’re right because you have intellectually defeated people like Hillary Clinton having so many equally bigoted supporters.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    How do you know if someone is going to want to be touched and it is too some extent appropriate for some minor touching when you care about each other(it need not be anything sexual at all) and maybe the employee's sad about something.
    It is not rocket science. Just keep your hands to yourself and you will be fine. And with regard to our MPs we are not talking friendships or relationships. We are talking about professional relationships. We are talking about Palace of Westminster staff, or party activists or journalists. There is no need to touch any of them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    It is not rocket science. Just keep your hands to yourself and you will be fine. And with regard to our MPs we are not talking friendships or relationships. We are talking about professional relationships. We are talking about Palace of Westminster staff, or party activists or journalists. There is no need to touch any of them.
    People don’t live as sterile creatures, even groups of people working together do things like kiss at Christmas parties.

    What these people are seeking to do is punish men for certain clumsy, mistaken or unreciprocated actions, and only punish men. That is selectively punishing people just for being people.

    That is not to say people shouldn’t be punished for doing things that are outright wrong, but the bar is being moved to punish people just for being people.

    At the end of the day all you need to do is show the double standards of this ideology, Rotherham v a man glancing at someone too long.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)

    That is not to say people shouldn’t be punished for doing things that are outright wrong, but the bar is being moved to punish people just for being people.
    You are now making excuses for people who can't keep their hands to themselves. Christmas parties are no exception. I don't grope or fondle people at Christmas parties. If I can do it, my esteemed, highly respected local MP surely can do it and given the scandal potential, I would expect him or her to be doubly careful.

    What has changed is that this behaviour is being publicly routed as being unacceptable and in 2017, about bloomin time too.

    Isn't it interested that it is men who are falling foul of this? If people are being people, why is it that women appear more than capable of keeping their hands to themselves?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    Let’s be clear, people who go around clubs randomly touching strangers, or people who should obscenities at people are idiots. Simple as.

    What we are saying is that there is situation in the male / female dynamics whereby men make a clumsy or mistaken sexual approach which is then rejected.

    You seem to be saying it’s OK to ruin these men’s lives over this.
    But it's ok to go around harassing a lady who has clearly said she has no interest in someone?

    No, it's ok to ruin someone's life. But at the same time I also have the right to live my life without having some creep harassing me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Are you the new resident TSR misogynist? Although judging by your join date you are probably just someone who made a new account after getting banned.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    That’s right if you make a cup of tea, you have no right to expect someone to drink it.

    The problem arises when someone says “I’m offended that you made the cup of tea” and then a number of people think you need to lose your job over making it.

    The point I am making is that the level of sensitivity is so High that it is construing the nuances and grey areas, often hard to predict , fiddly areas of human behaviour, as offences.


    Who you think likes to have leverage where you can destroy men for offering to make the tea? Feminists of course. You can start literally taking power from men. These are the same people who walk around almost naked with the letters “slut walk” and getting in everyone’s face, then all this fuss about a glance or incidental touch. We are taking not about normal people, but people with an agenda. All social justice warrior types have an agenda and they life life to further that agenda.
    So you think because women want to wear whatever they want, or nothing at all, you should have the right to touch them?

    Ironically, you display the very behavior that, if you spent just a few minutes actually listening to women, you would know is the exact problem. It's actually funny how much of a cliche you are.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    How do you know if someone is going to want to be touched and it is too some extent appropriate for some minor touching when you care about each other(it need not be anything sexual at all) and maybe the employee's sad about something.
    1. You can ask them. You can even ask a date if they want to have sex. Not just start touching them up, kissing them.

    2. Generally in the work place, pretty sure people don't want to be touched.

    It's really not that hard. Have you heard the list of harassing MEPs that female assistants created? Ever wondered why not every single male was on the list? Ever thought it may be, because some actually know how to behave? Obviously not, else you wouldn't have such difficulties with this topic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    You are now making excuses for people who can't keep their hands to themselves. Christmas parties are no exception. I don't grope or fondle people at Christmas parties. If I can do it, my esteemed, highly respected local MP surely can do it and given the scandal potential, I would expect him or her to be doubly careful.

    What has changed is that this behaviour is being publicly routed as being unacceptable and in 2017, about bloomin time too.

    Isn't it interested that it is men who are falling foul of this? If people are being people, why is it that women appear more than capable of keeping their hands to themselves?
    It’s 2017 so we need to make sure we allow ethnic minority grooming access to our children. It’s 2017, we need to ban man and women in case it offends transgenders. It’s 2017 we need to pretend biology doesn’t exist because we’re so offended by group differences. It’s x year is the worst liberal argument yet, presuming that were on a stead course to be regulated in to unified streams of controlled consciousness.

    What has changed is that we make a sensible rule, then start applying it non-sensical situations because we can’t see the wood for the trees.

    Women put their hands on men and women too. There just isn’t a media, social expectations and culture to start crying like it’s the end of the world.

    Let me spell it out for you, if people kept their hands to themselves there would be no people alive and you would not be alive. And society expects men to make the first move. Men are taking a risk to make the first move. A risk of rejection, but in shouldn’t be a risk that ruins them.

    Stop talking about a theoretical universe and straying talking about the real one.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    1. You can ask them. You can even ask a date if they want to have sex. Not just start touching them up, kissing them.

    2. Generally in the work place, pretty sure people don't want to be touched.

    It's really not that hard. Have you heard the list of harassing MEPs that female assistants created? Ever wondered why not every single male was on the list? Ever thought it may be, because some actually know how to behave? Obviously not, else you wouldn't have such difficulties with this topic.
    Women like men who take the lead.

    No women is going to be attracted to a wimpy van who has to ask before every move.

    That’s the paradox here. This is open discrimination towards men.

    Men have to take the lead moves, and if the women is attracted to the man all is fine, and if she is not then you want to say the man should be ruined.

    This is blatant sexism against men and it should be called out for what it is.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    Women like men who take the lead.

    No women is going to be attracted to a wimpy van who has to ask before every move.

    That’s the paradox here. This is open discrimination towards men.

    Men have to take the lead moves, and if the women is attracted to the man all is fine, and if she is not then you want to say the man should be ruined.

    This is blatant sexism against men and it should be called out for what it is.
    The hell are you on about? There's a way of asking someone out without sexually harassing them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    The hell are you on about? There's a way of asking someone out without sexually harassing them.
    When you ask someone out do you ask them “do you want to sleep with me?” - most people don’t because it’s too forward.

    So you must ask them out to some venue. At that point it’s not clear whether it’s a conversation, hanging out, intended friendship, intended fling or intended relationship.

    You use these terms like “asking out” as if it has a precise meaning. Is agreeing to go to a venue with someone a contact for physical contact? No

    Bottom line in any situation where there’re is intimacy, someone has to initiate, and it’s expected to be the man.

    In these situations, some people here are saying a man is a terrible person just for being rejected. That’s sick.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    Let me spell it out for you, if people kept their hands to themselves there would be no people alive and you would not be alive.
    And let me spell it out to you - there is no place for putting your hands on anyone in a professional environment!! I am not suggesting that no touching be allowed ever. I am however suggesting that there is no place for it in the workplace.

    Please enlighten me - apart from a formal handshake, just exactly when would it be appropriate for a male MP to place his hand on the knee of his female office assistant in the Palace of Westminster? When?

    Michael Fallon did not resign because he touched his wife or gave his best mate a hug!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    Women like men who take the lead.

    No women is going to be attracted to a wimpy van who has to ask before every move.

    That’s the paradox here. This is open discrimination towards men.

    Men have to take the lead moves, and if the women is attracted to the man all is fine, and if she is not then you want to say the man should be ruined.

    This is blatant sexism against men and it should be called out for what it is.
    Who said women want men. Period. Why is all you think about how to "get" women?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 9, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.