Well, one of your links is to a blog called "radtransfem" and Meghan Murphy is fair radical too.
Coming from a University environment, those links are not remotely radical.
I think it's also important to understand these lists of behaviours, like the one you link to, are just examples and not meant to remove the need for some judgement. When it lists winking as an example of potential sexual harassment, along side licking your lips, it clearly doesn't mean winking to indicate humour or licking that delicious sauce off your face.
And if the lady does not interpret it as humor or whatever the hell "delicious sauce" you are speaking of? It it not up to you to decide - it is her decision. If she is offended, she is offended. If she interprets that as you harassing her in a sexual manner, that is what it is.
And it's listing it as examples of things you should avoid doing, not a list of arbitrary actions you can be hung for.
Now this is interesting. I'm parsing what you wrote as "Don't do these things. It doesn't mean that you will be accused of sexual harassment, they are just examples of sexual harassment that aren't sexual harassment even though they are actually sexual harassment so don't do them. "That makes exactly zero sense.
I'm happy to have a discussion of these issues if you want. Really, I am.
The problem is, you are as resistant to evidence as a Sean Hannity fan. Looking at the body of work of our discussions, you belittle anything that doesn't mesh with your narrative. Either outright rejection, claiming extreme viewpoints, or that tapdance you just did regarding a list of things that are sexual harassment and you shouldn't do but somehow are not.
But for that to happen both sides have to give the benefit of the doubt and not try to interpret everything in the worst possible way, because otherwise language becomes a minefield and no-one can express any complex ideas.
One of the first issues is your idea that I "interpreted it in the worst possible way" Allow me to post the thing you are objecting to that you are claiming that I am interpreting in the worst possible way.
Sexual harassment can include, but is not limited to:
Touching, pinching, or grabbing someone else’s breasts, butt, or genitals
Touching, pinching, or grabbing your own breasts, butt, or genitals in front of others
Sexual comments, jokes, stories, song lyrics, or rumors
Gestures and facial expressions (e.g., winking or licking lips)
Inappropriate looks or staring at someone’s body
Clothing pulled to reveal your body or someone else’s body
Sexual pictures or drawings (e.g., a pornographic magazine)
Demands for sexual activity
Physical intimidation (e.g., standing too close to someone, following someone, blocking someone’s way so they can’t leave)
Cyberbullying (when the Internet, cell phones, or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person)
So in this case I'd say rather than picking one or two words out of what seems like a very reasonable document
This licking of lips or winking is considered sexual harassment. Otherwise they wouldn't have said it was "Sexual harassment can include, but is not limited to:" then used the words: "Gestures and facial expressions (e.g., winking or licking lips)
There is zero interpretation of that. It is right in the article. And if you try to slip in their use of the word "can" you are forcing the rather obvious sexual harassment situations into the same boat as your winking or licking lips interpretation. I interpret nothing.
examples of people being sanctioned for non-sexual winking?
One simple question. Do you know what "radical" means?
One of the recurring themes of our discussions is I start to give evidence, and in the next reply, you marginalize it by claiming that I am taking extremes and using them as mainstream.
Is there actually any point to having discussions with you? Because this is where we end up.
The women I hang around with, who all are feminist in the sense of wanting equal rights and , are generally for sex with members of the appropriate gender. None of them would interpret a single wink as sexual harassment. They tend to agree that, while having one person do something a bit off is no big deal, having fifty do it is unpleasant. You may be noticing people who are more strident (or perhaps I just hang around with superior women). It can be hard to tell.
Coming from a university environment, I can assure you that yes, the misandry and latent misandry is pretty strong. The concept of winking at a woman being some sort of invitation for sex is weird. If I had known that it was, I could have gotten laid a lot at work.
But Yeah, most women I know wouldn't consider it harassment. But it is in the list, which can make it dangerous. People in general can and do some pretty vindictive things, and my experience leading groups is that there are people who work with you, and ther eare people who want to tear you down. So winking at a woman might be a tool in the kit for tearning you down. Same goes for a man in another situation. But the intense emphasis on the sexual act by society and women forces a prudent man to make certain to defend himself.
And its a real pity, as it forces especially men to avoid risky situations. Going out to a bar for a drink after work with a co-worker isn't uncommon, and I've done that with male co-workers hundreds of times. Enjoyable, and strong bonding even. But would never ever do that with a female co-worker. It was career destructive years ago, and worse now. That's really too bad, is the answer to workplace equality to destroy male bonding? I do not see an answer to that problem because prudent men are withdrawing from female co-workers now, probably the opposite of what is needed.
You figure I'd be fired for my views if I worked at Google?
So you think that a previous relationship does imply continuing consent?
I think that if you are married to a woman, you do not have to ask her "May we hold hands?......may I kiss you?..... May I hug you?.... every time I wish to engage in sex. That previous consent thing means every time, it means every step, and makes no exceptions for happily married couples.
In real life, it does make almost all married men into criminals, and if my sex life is any indication, a lot of married women. Call them latent criminals if you like. But in a divorce proceeding, if a man in a Yes means Yes state cannot answer affrmitively that every time he had sex with his wife, and at all stages, he has raped her.
Nor does holding hands constitute sexual assault, at least not where I live.
Grabbing a breast would, but that law lists "intimate areas". explicitly.
Define an intimate area. Many women find it very erotic to have their fingers caressed. Many find a male touching them to be assault. Many laws define assault as any touch any where. Better get permission.
So, suppose you want to do something with a girl friend, and you don't want to ask incessant questions. There's ways to hint that you want a response, and the response doesn't have to be verbal to be consent under that standard.
What is a non-verbal consent that would hold up in a court of law if the man was being charged with rape?
It's also apparently only for campus sexual assault cases.
Do you think that the young women are going to come out of college and suddenly stop thinking that anything other than yes means yes no longer means they are being raped? Of course she will, which is why I note the uselessness of a non-verbal claim of consent.
In addition, what of a young woman in college dating a townie - who's rules govern their interactions? the college cannot touch him, but the courts can. There will be test cases.
Assuming a woman likes those fantasies, she isn't likely to want to get ravished at any moment of any day, so there should be some way for the husband to know when it's OK and when it isn't. Even under the rules you quoted, the husband can start with something short of a gross misdemeanor and let the wife respond.
"Something short of a gross misdemeanor." That's hilarious. You know what happens when you have to second guess your every move? "Could this come back to get me in trouble?" You think about some impromptu fun with the wife, she's looking good today, you second guess it, then go out ot the garage and work on the lawnmower.
If I were in college now, (and single) I'd simply avoid contact with women other than that needed to complete my studies, and definitely stay away from any relationships. I'm there to get an education anyhow, and if sex is a such a minefield, then I'm going to focus on that. 4 years of celibacy will not only keep me out of trouble, but the young ladies will appreciate me not sexually assaulting them, so its a win-win situation.
The argument is not whether it is against the law; it's whether free will is involved when you have a choice: you can forego a college degree and be poor forever; you can take a student loan and be crushed by debt, and poor forever; or you can become an exotic dancer because you have no other marketable skills due to that whole "everyone wants you to have a degree" thing.
Poverty, debt, or humiliation. Choose.
False Trichotomy. Wrong on so many levels. I took college while working at a University, so I got a hella discount. There are scholarships, full and partial. Many that are woman only. https://www.scholarships.com/f...https://www.scholarshipsforwom... Not having a college degree is not an assurance of poverty - you just have to get the right job. Having a degree is not assurance of a high paying job. And being an exotic dancer might not even occur to someone, and is only financially viable for women.
As I have noted: there are many who do not see the last option as humiliation, as they enjoy that sort of thing anyway, and the pay is just a bonus. That does not excuse the existence of those who do not and feel it is their least-terrible option any more than the existence of the BDSM community excuses the existence of domestic violence.
That argument simply makes no sense. You have it stuck in your mind that this is some manner of sex trafficking existence. With a few people enjoying it, and others doing work that disgusts them.
Your logic is tainted with your sex-negative bias. Peace out.
I've always been amazed that Pat's gawd punishes Southern States for those Liberal Nawthener's sins. Legalize Gay Marriage? Let's send a Hurricane to Mississippi.
That's an old practice. Some people thought Ben Franklin's lighting rods were blasphemous, and so he smote Lisbon with an earthquake. Some other people thought God had better aim than that.
Wow, that dude is kind of a jerk! And not old Ben either,
If I ever tried to get myself elected to political office, I'd be lucky to get my own mother to vote for me. So it may be the Dunning-Kruger talking. But it sure seems like the Democratic party has a major schism between the upper class ladies of the party and the working class men of the party.
Yes. The far left portion of the Democrats is analgous to the extreme right of the Republican party. Big freaking albatrosses that the other party is all too happy to exploit.
That's why liberals paint the Republican Party as White supremacists and Neo Nazis and the Conservatives paint Democrats as all radical feminists. The main difference I see now is that the Republicans have pushed right too far. They've made the tent very small.
The working class men are laying awake at night with cold fear in the pits of their stomachs worrying about how their going to feed their families while the upper class ladies are worrying about having their butts grabbed.
Yikes! That's pretty well put. As a male who has had his butt grabbed by women, and not had to go into therapy because of it, I suppose I might be accused of not understanding, but I do. There are issues that happen between the sexes on occasion. But just as Mothers Against Drunk Driving don't disband after getting the BAC lowered to.08, they moved on to a modern day version of prohibition activism, feminists, who have been wildly successful, merely push further with every victory. And when the way a man sits on a bus is a symbol of rape culture, and can be arrested for it. And a man having a physical relationship with a woman must be approved step by step, with a request and a positive response, and that positive response can be withdrawn at any time, lets face it, that is pure distilled hatred.
The events in a typical working class man's life that determine how he feels about the #metoo movement - what it means to him are almost certainly going to be totally different from the events in the upper class lady's life.
He is likely to come to the conclusion that he won't have to worry about feeding a family if he doesn't have one.
What was really ROFL-worthy was that his Minnesota station lost so many annual pledges from angry Keillor fans that it eventually had to disclose the secret reason for the firing. The big reveal: Keillor's tempestuous relationship with one woman. For that, I hope Minnesota Public Radio goes straight to the bottom.
I used to listen to "Writer's Almanac" in the morning. But now I often forget to turn the radio on. Fuck MPR.
Amazing that the women never even needed to identify herself. That's the real dig - no due process, only an accusation is enough. You don't even get to face your accuser.
#metoo, and the open warfare on men has unfortunately been high octane MGTOW fuel recently. The part that I don't understand is why MGTOW, which is passive avoidance, is so wildly hated by the people who adhere to the "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" mantra made famous by Irina Dunn, and co-opted by Gloria Steinham. Since women do not need men, why do men deciding that they do not need women make so many so very angry. It would seem to be a near total victory for women.
It's pretty obvious that this is not a sustainable situation. The really sad irony is that while normal men start to protect themselves by avoiding interaction with members of the opposite sex, the creeps will just keep on doing what they were doing all along.
And it pisses off normal women who are able to take care of themselves, enjoy sex, and might enjoy their husband sweeping them off their feet for some impromptu wild sex, which is now considered rape in the world of "Yes means yes" where the male must ask permission for every stage of intercourse, and the woman must grant it.
That... that isn't how consent works. You can negotiate whatever structure of consent works between you and your partners. The structure you are referring to is for hookups where by definition nothing has been negotiated beforehand because it's the very first sexual encounter (and my understanding is that pre-sex negotiation is rare in vanilla hookup culture).
In 2014, California garnered widespread attention when Governor Brown signed the nation’s first affirmative consent standard for colleges to use in campus sexual assault cases. The law established that consent is a voluntary, affirmative, conscious, agreement to engage in sexual activity, that it can be revoked at any time, that a previous relationship does not constitute consent, and that coercion or threat of force can also not be used to establish consent. Affirmative consent can be given either verbally or nonverbally. Additionally, the law clarified that a person who is incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, or is either not awake or fully awake, is also incapable of giving consent.
Perhaps I don't understand what I just pasted from the site. A previous relationship does not constitute consent. Just like it says. Every time my friend, every step from hand holding to orgasm - unless you want to expose yourself to charges of rape. And don't forget that even without a rape trial, not getting consent every time can get you in extra hot water during the likely divorce a few years down the road.
I've read articles by women lamenting that men no longer sweep them off their feet. The husband sneaks up behind her and "ravishes" her. This is a pretty popular fantasy. It's also called a surrender fantasy. It is kind of a pity that Yes means Yes makes that illegal. Is she going to report that if you surprise her with that some times? Probably not, I suspect most normal woman like the idea of their husband or SO lusting after her and going impromptu. But a man would have to be a fool to take the chance, because under the law, it is exactly rape.
Many of the dancers at one of our local "Gentleman's Clubs" are students working their way through college. No one is forcing them, loans are available.
No one is forcing a black teenager in South Carolina, 1820, to try to make a decent living while nobody will even let her shop in their store 'cause a free black is an affront to society. Slavery is available; she could even be one of them house wenches that gets to dress all pretty and smile for guests.
Umm, your ridiculous attempt to cast exotic dancers as slaves is noted as ridiculous.
Student loans. Really.
Student loans - really. When a degree can cost you heading toward 100K you might look at ways to finance it. And you are not at all forced to. You can get student loans and live off them for four years. You can't work a regular student type job these days - at least ot make a dent in your college cost. And the kind of jobs that would allow you to make a tidy sum over the summer are now not available to American students, because that would be a job at the shore or other tourist attraction, and colleges have started their fall semesters before Labor day, the busiest part of the season. Those shore jobs are now taken up by European teenagers. I make it a game guessing this CoO from their accent. Being from Eastern Europe, they don't think that is attempted sexual assault, But I digress.
There is absolutely nothing forcing these women to enter this line of work for a few years, just an outlook that allows them to do it. Did you know that there are male dancers as well? But they only get maybe 25 cents on the dollar, a clear case of wage discrimination, but I digress again.
I'm sure some of them are just fine with the situation and feel like they're in control; others are terrified of crushing student loan debt and feel like they have no choice.
My wife knows a number of Exotic dancers, they often come down to the restaurant she goes to breakfast at with some friends, and they are all early risers. Some times after an evening's work, the owner treats them to breakfast. What is interesting is that they don't fit the "Law and Order, Special Victims Unit" stereotype. They fit the normal spectrum of human females. Most are personable, smart, and when they aren't made up for an evening's work, look just like pretty young ladies.
Not one would be described as terrified, that isn't hard at all to spot. They seem rather happy in fact. But a person - male or female - should have the choice of what they want to do. Dancing naked or nearly so in an establishment designed for that purpose is not against the law, nor should it be. This is not prostitution, this is not the patriarchy oppressing women. it is entertainment.
More's the pity that third wave sex negative feminists and far right wing Fundamentalist Christians have decided that they need to attack legitimate employment, although I wonder what the feminists think about gay versions of these clubs. We know what the Fundies think of gays.
Third wave feminists are generally sex-positive, and in favour of bodily autonomy in general. Otherwise they wouldn't support things like trans rights or reproductive rights.
Abortions are not a matter of sex. They are a matter of getting rid of the effects of having sex with a male. Note, I am pro choice. As for transgender, gender is not the province of women to justify or condemn, it is the province of the person who decides what gender they are. And it is not necessarily related to sexual acts. According to Facebook agender is a gender, Arguing that agender has something to do with sex is like calling atheism a religion. Then we can get into Tumblr's list of genders, most which seem to have no relation to any sexual act at all.
But this sex negative versus sex positive thing - apparently there aren't many third wave feminists by your definition. I did a little research on the topic, and aside frmo women who are obscuring the issue by declaring sex negative is actually sex positive and vice versa, but there is what appears to be a consensus that sex positive is simply playing into the hands of the patriarchy. https://www.lipstickalley.com/...
As well, much of what is referred to as sex-positive these days is same sex activity between women. As this woman notes from https://radtransfem.wordpress....
"Under patriarchy, sex is power, power is sexy, and sex is compulsory. That is to say, the sex act is attractive in a way that is conditioned by its qualities of power and violence sex is not above criticism. Not bad sex, not sex gone wrong, not the sex that other people have. Our sex.
Reading the lit, sex positive among third wavers aould appear to be positive in the notion of lesbian sex. Sex with men is largely negative. That's okay, I don't really care who puts what where, but we need to know that the definitions are gender fluid.
Those positions also affirm the belief that women are strong, intelligent and capable enough of making decisions about their bodies on their own.
You are working the conversation into some sort of men ruling over women's bodies here. But okay, lets have some of that strong and intelligent business.
Do not hand me the idea that women are strong when winking at one is legal sexual harassment and damages the woman. As well, when looking at a woman is sexual harassment. All she has to do is define it as innapropriate or harassing and legally, it is just that. Yeah, when you can be intimidated or mentally damaged by a man who winks at you - it's pretty difficult to call that a strong person.
Regardless, the reaction to #metoo, the wholesale drugging of male children to keep them in line, a lot of men raised in single parent households (alomst all women HOH) and the divorce laws and society are enabling what women apparently want - to be left alone. There is a reason that the marriage rate has dropped precipitously. Less children are being born, and a whole lot of men have decided that LWA is the proper response. This is a win for women.
They are also the ones who have been really pushing to make sex more enjoyable for women by removing the taboo of talking about it and recognizing that women's bodies often need more than just penetration to get off. Sales of sex toys are way up because of this mini-revolution.
Well now - masturbation is not sex, it is a substitute for sex. And another interesting area opens up. Did you know that a man can rape a sexbot?
My right to my picture. Yes, such a thing exists in European law: Your face is yours, and only yours, and anyone wanting to take a picture of it needs your permission to do so. There are some exceptions like for celebrities, or when the picture taken is about, say, a building and you just happen to be in the picture and not in focus, but in general, if you want to do ANYTHING with a picture that has me on it, you need my ok.
There are exceptions at least here in the US. Out n the streets, or newsworthy events, and you don't have much say.
Am I to take it however, that in Europe pictures of say a crowd at a football game or Festival are illegal?
The lawsuit is not questioning Facebook's right to display the images, and running an algorithm on pixels is not a form of commercial use that requires a model release.
We're getting to broad brushing some stuff about model releases here.In a public place, a person has no particular privacy. As well if the image was newsworthy.
Even then, the law is not absolute. If say an attractive woman model is shown sitting at a bar with a bottle of liquor, and used in an advertisement for that liquor, a standard model release is sufficient. If someone uses that same photo in an article about a troubling rise in alcoholic women, or about prostitutes working in bars, the photographer darn well better have had that mentioned in the model release.
While some releases declare "any and all uses", that could become a bit vague, and a judge will almost certainly allow a trial to go forward.
Other possibilities are if someone posts an image of people in a private domicile. Private places have private protections.
And a bar is also private property.
To top it all off, model releases can be held null and void if there is no consideration given, ie money passes hands. So if I have been in a situation where I've used models either at work or a part time video/photo/animation business of mine, they'd get at least 5 dollars. Of course usually much more.
So whether this particular case is involved with copyright, Facebook is facing some issues of privacy if images from a private place are posted. And the path stops at where and who makes the money. A friend might have posted the pictures, so discouraged, but no legal harm. But the property owner will have a case. And if Facebook monetizes a copyrighted image, they owe the copyright holder.
The issue was dealt with during the Google Glass saga, where bar owners asserted their private property privacy rights to tell the Glassholes that they could not stream video in their establishments.
IANAL, but I've dealt with this issue over the years.
And I for one will never forgive the SJWs for what they did to Garrison Keillor.
Arrrrgh! I've been triggered! I agree completely. Of all the people, Keillor? When they toasted him, it was a big clue as to just how far they've sunk. Just how incredibly weak third wavers want women to be. Apparently sexual assault is now patting women on the back.
Keillor's firing was so egregious, that that was the turning point for me, not the Ansari Aziz business, where She didn't have fun on a date so that's rape! case.
Oh so it wasn't a real question. It was just bait so you could then rant about whataboutism when someone answered it.
Well done, you trolled me well and truly.
No Problem. This is the problem with Trolling. We can all fall to it. And I mean me too.
that oppose prostitution. Care to point any out? I do know a lot that want more social services so women are much less likely to turn to prostitution. But they're all in the "Legal, Taxed & Regulated" crowd.
There is a schism in feminism between sex negative and sex positive. The sex negative version finds that prostitution is exploitation of women by men. I'm not certain how they feel about women going to women prostitutes.
Sex positive feminists tend toward if the woman is doing this of her own free will, then she can do as she wants. Many of the dancers at one of our local "Gentleman's Clubs" are students working their way through college. No one is forcing them, loans are available.
Now, I do know a lot of right wingers who enjoy seeing people punished for their mistakes. Bill O'Reilly and the whole Fox News crowd come to mind.
Well, as long as it is other people's mistakes. Buddy Billy is a first class creeper in his own right, and Roger Aisles and his raw hamburger like genitals are just two of their creeps.
I also know a lot of religious people who are convinced that if we don't get all this sinning under control God's going to wipe us out. Pat Robinson comes to mind.
I've always been amazed that Pat's gawd punishes Southern States for those Liberal Nawthener's sins. Legalize Gay Marriage? Let's send a Hurricane to Mississippi.
But now that both liberals and conservatives have turned sex-negative again, fat chance.
Hopefully this will change. We have seen the (hopefully) ultimate of sex negative in the #metoo movement, which has mixed legitimate events with ones that are one step away from gender apartheid, like the Ansari Assiz event, where a date that a woman didn't enjoy was cast as a legitimate reason to destroy his career. The sex negative outlook of the third wave feminists casts women as fundamentally weak. Fragile minds that are so easily damaged beyond repair that Victorian women would be disgusted by the concept that women are that weak.
So as marriage rates that were already plummeting are coupled with an active avoidance of the frail flowers that cannot withstand any adversity, and the definition of adversity extended to normal interactions - this entire sex negative worldview starts to look like a really bad idea.
And it pisses off normal women who are able to take care of themselves, enjoy sex, and might enjoy their husband sweeping them off their feet for some impromptu wild sex, which is now considered rape in the world of "Yes means yes" where the male must ask permission for every stage of intercourse, and the woman must grant it.
I suspect that the third wave feminists and their useful idiots will be marginalized soon, as more and more people understand the world they are trying to create is going to end as successfully as the shaker movement.
Almost as though when you win a war and carve up the spoils, the losers feel like they've been unjustly robbed and seek restitution by the only avenue open to them.
Don't really see a whole lot of alternatives though, aside from avoiding warfare or not pillaging the loser while they're down. Not sure which is more unlikely...
A bit of both. Certainly after WW1, the Germans got a bit of nasty punishment. But when you are in a war and lose, you take what you get. So yes, the WW1 ending had a good bit to go with giving rise to the conditions that were a part of starting WW2.
Given the natural abilities that the Germans had - awesome engineering, industriousness, and some latent racism tendencies, coupled with the punishment, it was not terribly surprising that old Adolph found a receptive audience, and had early success.
But it also sealed the approach used against them in the final days of their participation in WW2. The Russians who had been so horribly savaged by Germany earlier in the war, were on a justified vendetta of destruction. The Americans as well, but not to such an extent. But it was a given that the German state was going to be beaten down to the point that they would think twice about starting another war.
Then afterwards having learned from the excessive punishment of WW1, the goal was to help rebuild Germany, and later Japan. Both are now Allies of the USA, which is much better than the alternative.
The German/Russian part of WW2 is as fascinating - if horrifying - bit of History I've ever read. I'd love to hear from our Russian brethren for any insights they have on that.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, one of your links is to a blog called "radtransfem" and Meghan Murphy is fair radical too.
Coming from a University environment, those links are not remotely radical.
I think it's also important to understand these lists of behaviours, like the one you link to, are just examples and not meant to remove the need for some judgement. When it lists winking as an example of potential sexual harassment, along side licking your lips, it clearly doesn't mean winking to indicate humour or licking that delicious sauce off your face.
And if the lady does not interpret it as humor or whatever the hell "delicious sauce" you are speaking of? It it not up to you to decide - it is her decision. If she is offended, she is offended. If she interprets that as you harassing her in a sexual manner, that is what it is.
And it's listing it as examples of things you should avoid doing, not a list of arbitrary actions you can be hung for.
Now this is interesting. I'm parsing what you wrote as "Don't do these things. It doesn't mean that you will be accused of sexual harassment, they are just examples of sexual harassment that aren't sexual harassment even though they are actually sexual harassment so don't do them. "That makes exactly zero sense.
I'm happy to have a discussion of these issues if you want. Really, I am.
The problem is, you are as resistant to evidence as a Sean Hannity fan. Looking at the body of work of our discussions, you belittle anything that doesn't mesh with your narrative. Either outright rejection, claiming extreme viewpoints, or that tapdance you just did regarding a list of things that are sexual harassment and you shouldn't do but somehow are not.
But for that to happen both sides have to give the benefit of the doubt and not try to interpret everything in the worst possible way, because otherwise language becomes a minefield and no-one can express any complex ideas.
One of the first issues is your idea that I "interpreted it in the worst possible way" Allow me to post the thing you are objecting to that you are claiming that I am interpreting in the worst possible way.
Sexual harassment can include, but is not limited to:
Touching, pinching, or grabbing someone else’s breasts, butt, or genitals
Touching, pinching, or grabbing your own breasts, butt, or genitals in front of others
Sexual comments, jokes, stories, song lyrics, or rumors
Gestures and facial expressions (e.g., winking or licking lips)
Inappropriate looks or staring at someone’s body
Clothing pulled to reveal your body or someone else’s body
Sexual pictures or drawings (e.g., a pornographic magazine)
Demands for sexual activity
Physical intimidation (e.g., standing too close to someone, following someone, blocking someone’s way so they can’t leave)
Cyberbullying (when the Internet, cell phones, or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person)
So in this case I'd say rather than picking one or two words out of what seems like a very reasonable document
This licking of lips or winking is considered sexual harassment. Otherwise they wouldn't have said it was "Sexual harassment can include, but is not limited to:" then used the words: "Gestures and facial expressions (e.g., winking or licking lips)
There is zero interpretation of that. It is right in the article. And if you try to slip in their use of the word "can" you are forcing the rather obvious sexual harassment situations into the same boat as your winking or licking lips interpretation. I interpret nothing.
examples of people being sanctioned for non-sexual winking?
No need to worry. At least we can be sure this one is a Corrupto-Currency.
Cymbal Crash! I propose we call this sort of burn a "Thwaks"
Dude time travel sex, 'eww', that sounds awful if you are Russian, travel back in time to screw your soviet ancestor, eww, seriously mate ;D.
Although Marty McFly's Mom was pretty hot in Back to the Future. That was a close call...
And he has security where ever he goes. It's not cheaper at the White House, still full security staff 24/7
How about you prove that thesis? That it costs as much to stay at the White house as it does to go to Mr-a-Lego most weekends.
He could have searched for somebody knowing tech among the republican, launched a call for a republican with fair and balanced view..
In other words, a Unicorn
One simple question. Do you know what "radical" means?
One of the recurring themes of our discussions is I start to give evidence, and in the next reply, you marginalize it by claiming that I am taking extremes and using them as mainstream.
Is there actually any point to having discussions with you? Because this is where we end up.
The women I hang around with, who all are feminist in the sense of wanting equal rights and , are generally for sex with members of the appropriate gender. None of them would interpret a single wink as sexual harassment. They tend to agree that, while having one person do something a bit off is no big deal, having fifty do it is unpleasant. You may be noticing people who are more strident (or perhaps I just hang around with superior women). It can be hard to tell.
Coming from a university environment, I can assure you that yes, the misandry and latent misandry is pretty strong. The concept of winking at a woman being some sort of invitation for sex is weird. If I had known that it was, I could have gotten laid a lot at work.
But Yeah, most women I know wouldn't consider it harassment. But it is in the list, which can make it dangerous. People in general can and do some pretty vindictive things, and my experience leading groups is that there are people who work with you, and ther eare people who want to tear you down. So winking at a woman might be a tool in the kit for tearning you down. Same goes for a man in another situation. But the intense emphasis on the sexual act by society and women forces a prudent man to make certain to defend himself.
And its a real pity, as it forces especially men to avoid risky situations. Going out to a bar for a drink after work with a co-worker isn't uncommon, and I've done that with male co-workers hundreds of times. Enjoyable, and strong bonding even. But would never ever do that with a female co-worker. It was career destructive years ago, and worse now. That's really too bad, is the answer to workplace equality to destroy male bonding? I do not see an answer to that problem because prudent men are withdrawing from female co-workers now, probably the opposite of what is needed.
You figure I'd be fired for my views if I worked at Google?
So you think that a previous relationship does imply continuing consent?
I think that if you are married to a woman, you do not have to ask her "May we hold hands?......may I kiss you?..... May I hug you?.... every time I wish to engage in sex. That previous consent thing means every time, it means every step, and makes no exceptions for happily married couples.
In real life, it does make almost all married men into criminals, and if my sex life is any indication, a lot of married women. Call them latent criminals if you like. But in a divorce proceeding, if a man in a Yes means Yes state cannot answer affrmitively that every time he had sex with his wife, and at all stages, he has raped her.
Nor does holding hands constitute sexual assault, at least not where I live.
https://thinkprogress.org/tenn... I'll just leave this here....
Grabbing a breast would, but that law lists "intimate areas". explicitly.
Define an intimate area. Many women find it very erotic to have their fingers caressed. Many find a male touching them to be assault. Many laws define assault as any touch any where. Better get permission.
So, suppose you want to do something with a girl friend, and you don't want to ask incessant questions. There's ways to hint that you want a response, and the response doesn't have to be verbal to be consent under that standard.
What is a non-verbal consent that would hold up in a court of law if the man was being charged with rape?
It's also apparently only for campus sexual assault cases.
Do you think that the young women are going to come out of college and suddenly stop thinking that anything other than yes means yes no longer means they are being raped? Of course she will, which is why I note the uselessness of a non-verbal claim of consent.
In addition, what of a young woman in college dating a townie - who's rules govern their interactions? the college cannot touch him, but the courts can. There will be test cases.
Assuming a woman likes those fantasies, she isn't likely to want to get ravished at any moment of any day, so there should be some way for the husband to know when it's OK and when it isn't. Even under the rules you quoted, the husband can start with something short of a gross misdemeanor and let the wife respond.
"Something short of a gross misdemeanor." That's hilarious. You know what happens when you have to second guess your every move? "Could this come back to get me in trouble?" You think about some impromptu fun with the wife, she's looking good today, you second guess it, then go out ot the garage and work on the lawnmower.
If I were in college now, (and single) I'd simply avoid contact with women other than that needed to complete my studies, and definitely stay away from any relationships. I'm there to get an education anyhow, and if sex is a such a minefield, then I'm going to focus on that. 4 years of celibacy will not only keep me out of trouble, but the young ladies will appreciate me not sexually assaulting them, so its a win-win situation.
The argument is not whether it is against the law; it's whether free will is involved when you have a choice: you can forego a college degree and be poor forever; you can take a student loan and be crushed by debt, and poor forever; or you can become an exotic dancer because you have no other marketable skills due to that whole "everyone wants you to have a degree" thing.
Poverty, debt, or humiliation. Choose.
False Trichotomy. Wrong on so many levels. I took college while working at a University, so I got a hella discount. There are scholarships, full and partial. Many that are woman only. https://www.scholarships.com/f... https://www.scholarshipsforwom... Not having a college degree is not an assurance of poverty - you just have to get the right job. Having a degree is not assurance of a high paying job. And being an exotic dancer might not even occur to someone, and is only financially viable for women.
As I have noted: there are many who do not see the last option as humiliation, as they enjoy that sort of thing anyway, and the pay is just a bonus. That does not excuse the existence of those who do not and feel it is their least-terrible option any more than the existence of the BDSM community excuses the existence of domestic violence.
That argument simply makes no sense. You have it stuck in your mind that this is some manner of sex trafficking existence. With a few people enjoying it, and others doing work that disgusts them.
Your logic is tainted with your sex-negative bias. Peace out.
That's an old practice. Some people thought Ben Franklin's lighting rods were blasphemous, and so he smote Lisbon with an earthquake. Some other people thought God had better aim than that.
Wow, that dude is kind of a jerk! And not old Ben either,
If I ever tried to get myself elected to political office, I'd be lucky to get my own mother to vote for me. So it may be the Dunning-Kruger talking. But it sure seems like the Democratic party has a major schism between the upper class ladies of the party and the working class men of the party.
Yes. The far left portion of the Democrats is analgous to the extreme right of the Republican party. Big freaking albatrosses that the other party is all too happy to exploit.
That's why liberals paint the Republican Party as White supremacists and Neo Nazis and the Conservatives paint Democrats as all radical feminists. The main difference I see now is that the Republicans have pushed right too far. They've made the tent very small.
The working class men are laying awake at night with cold fear in the pits of their stomachs worrying about how their going to feed their families while the upper class ladies are worrying about having their butts grabbed.
Yikes! That's pretty well put. As a male who has had his butt grabbed by women, and not had to go into therapy because of it, I suppose I might be accused of not understanding, but I do. There are issues that happen between the sexes on occasion. But just as Mothers Against Drunk Driving don't disband after getting the BAC lowered to .08, they moved on to a modern day version of prohibition activism, feminists, who have been wildly successful, merely push further with every victory. And when the way a man sits on a bus is a symbol of rape culture, and can be arrested for it. And a man having a physical relationship with a woman must be approved step by step, with a request and a positive response, and that positive response can be withdrawn at any time, lets face it, that is pure distilled hatred.
The events in a typical working class man's life that determine how he feels about the #metoo movement - what it means to him are almost certainly going to be totally different from the events in the upper class lady's life.
He is likely to come to the conclusion that he won't have to worry about feeding a family if he doesn't have one.
What was really ROFL-worthy was that his Minnesota station lost so many annual pledges from angry Keillor fans that it eventually had to disclose the secret reason for the firing. The big reveal: Keillor's tempestuous relationship with one woman. For that, I hope Minnesota Public Radio goes straight to the bottom.
I used to listen to "Writer's Almanac" in the morning. But now I often forget to turn the radio on. Fuck MPR.
Amazing that the women never even needed to identify herself. That's the real dig - no due process, only an accusation is enough. You don't even get to face your accuser.
#metoo, and the open warfare on men has unfortunately been high octane MGTOW fuel recently. The part that I don't understand is why MGTOW, which is passive avoidance, is so wildly hated by the people who adhere to the "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" mantra made famous by Irina Dunn, and co-opted by Gloria Steinham. Since women do not need men, why do men deciding that they do not need women make so many so very angry. It would seem to be a near total victory for women.
It's pretty obvious that this is not a sustainable situation. The really sad irony is that while normal men start to protect themselves by avoiding interaction with members of the opposite sex, the creeps will just keep on doing what they were doing all along.
And it pisses off normal women who are able to take care of themselves, enjoy sex, and might enjoy their husband sweeping them off their feet for some impromptu wild sex, which is now considered rape in the world of "Yes means yes" where the male must ask permission for every stage of intercourse, and the woman must grant it.
That... that isn't how consent works. You can negotiate whatever structure of consent works between you and your partners. The structure you are referring to is for hookups where by definition nothing has been negotiated beforehand because it's the very first sexual encounter (and my understanding is that pre-sex negotiation is rare in vanilla hookup culture).
Here is Yes means yes: http://endrapeoncampus.org/yes...
In 2014, California garnered widespread attention when Governor Brown signed the nation’s first affirmative consent standard for colleges to use in campus sexual assault cases. The law established that consent is a voluntary, affirmative, conscious, agreement to engage in sexual activity, that it can be revoked at any time, that a previous relationship does not constitute consent, and that coercion or threat of force can also not be used to establish consent. Affirmative consent can be given either verbally or nonverbally. Additionally, the law clarified that a person who is incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, or is either not awake or fully awake, is also incapable of giving consent.
Perhaps I don't understand what I just pasted from the site. A previous relationship does not constitute consent. Just like it says. Every time my friend, every step from hand holding to orgasm - unless you want to expose yourself to charges of rape. And don't forget that even without a rape trial, not getting consent every time can get you in extra hot water during the likely divorce a few years down the road.
I've read articles by women lamenting that men no longer sweep them off their feet. The husband sneaks up behind her and "ravishes" her. This is a pretty popular fantasy. It's also called a surrender fantasy. It is kind of a pity that Yes means Yes makes that illegal. Is she going to report that if you surprise her with that some times? Probably not, I suspect most normal woman like the idea of their husband or SO lusting after her and going impromptu. But a man would have to be a fool to take the chance, because under the law, it is exactly rape.
Many of the dancers at one of our local "Gentleman's Clubs" are students working their way through college. No one is forcing them, loans are available.
No one is forcing a black teenager in South Carolina, 1820, to try to make a decent living while nobody will even let her shop in their store 'cause a free black is an affront to society. Slavery is available; she could even be one of them house wenches that gets to dress all pretty and smile for guests.
Umm, your ridiculous attempt to cast exotic dancers as slaves is noted as ridiculous.
Student loans. Really.
Student loans - really. When a degree can cost you heading toward 100K you might look at ways to finance it. And you are not at all forced to. You can get student loans and live off them for four years. You can't work a regular student type job these days - at least ot make a dent in your college cost. And the kind of jobs that would allow you to make a tidy sum over the summer are now not available to American students, because that would be a job at the shore or other tourist attraction, and colleges have started their fall semesters before Labor day, the busiest part of the season. Those shore jobs are now taken up by European teenagers. I make it a game guessing this CoO from their accent. Being from Eastern Europe, they don't think that is attempted sexual assault, But I digress.
There is absolutely nothing forcing these women to enter this line of work for a few years, just an outlook that allows them to do it. Did you know that there are male dancers as well? But they only get maybe 25 cents on the dollar, a clear case of wage discrimination, but I digress again.
I'm sure some of them are just fine with the situation and feel like they're in control; others are terrified of crushing student loan debt and feel like they have no choice.
My wife knows a number of Exotic dancers, they often come down to the restaurant she goes to breakfast at with some friends, and they are all early risers. Some times after an evening's work, the owner treats them to breakfast. What is interesting is that they don't fit the "Law and Order, Special Victims Unit" stereotype. They fit the normal spectrum of human females. Most are personable, smart, and when they aren't made up for an evening's work, look just like pretty young ladies.
Not one would be described as terrified, that isn't hard at all to spot. They seem rather happy in fact. But a person - male or female - should have the choice of what they want to do. Dancing naked or nearly so in an establishment designed for that purpose is not against the law, nor should it be. This is not prostitution, this is not the patriarchy oppressing women. it is entertainment.
More's the pity that third wave sex negative feminists and far right wing Fundamentalist Christians have decided that they need to attack legitimate employment, although I wonder what the feminists think about gay versions of these clubs. We know what the Fundies think of gays.
Third wave feminists are generally sex-positive, and in favour of bodily autonomy in general. Otherwise they wouldn't support things like trans rights or reproductive rights.
Abortions are not a matter of sex. They are a matter of getting rid of the effects of having sex with a male. Note, I am pro choice. As for transgender, gender is not the province of women to justify or condemn, it is the province of the person who decides what gender they are. And it is not necessarily related to sexual acts. According to Facebook agender is a gender, Arguing that agender has something to do with sex is like calling atheism a religion. Then we can get into Tumblr's list of genders, most which seem to have no relation to any sexual act at all.
But this sex negative versus sex positive thing - apparently there aren't many third wave feminists by your definition. I did a little research on the topic, and aside frmo women who are obscuring the issue by declaring sex negative is actually sex positive and vice versa, but there is what appears to be a consensus that sex positive is simply playing into the hands of the patriarchy. https://www.lipstickalley.com/...
As well, much of what is referred to as sex-positive these days is same sex activity between women. As this woman notes from https://radtransfem.wordpress....
"Under patriarchy, sex is power, power is sexy, and sex is compulsory. That is to say, the sex act is attractive in a way that is conditioned by its qualities of power and violence sex is not above criticism. Not bad sex, not sex gone wrong, not the sex that other people have. Our sex.
https://taikonenfea.wordpress....
Reading the lit, sex positive among third wavers aould appear to be positive in the notion of lesbian sex. Sex with men is largely negative. That's okay, I don't really care who puts what where, but we need to know that the definitions are gender fluid.
Those positions also affirm the belief that women are strong, intelligent and capable enough of making decisions about their bodies on their own.
You are working the conversation into some sort of men ruling over women's bodies here. But okay, lets have some of that strong and intelligent business.
http://www.ggenyc.org/programs...
Do not hand me the idea that women are strong when winking at one is legal sexual harassment and damages the woman. As well, when looking at a woman is sexual harassment. All she has to do is define it as innapropriate or harassing and legally, it is just that. Yeah, when you can be intimidated or mentally damaged by a man who winks at you - it's pretty difficult to call that a strong person.
Regardless, the reaction to #metoo, the wholesale drugging of male children to keep them in line, a lot of men raised in single parent households (alomst all women HOH) and the divorce laws and society are enabling what women apparently want - to be left alone. There is a reason that the marriage rate has dropped precipitously. Less children are being born, and a whole lot of men have decided that LWA is the proper response. This is a win for women.
They are also the ones who have been really pushing to make sex more enjoyable for women by removing the taboo of talking about it and recognizing that women's bodies often need more than just penetration to get off. Sales of sex toys are way up because of this mini-revolution.
Well now - masturbation is not sex, it is a substitute for sex. And another interesting area opens up. Did you know that a man can rape a sexbot?
My right to my picture. Yes, such a thing exists in European law: Your face is yours, and only yours, and anyone wanting to take a picture of it needs your permission to do so. There are some exceptions like for celebrities, or when the picture taken is about, say, a building and you just happen to be in the picture and not in focus, but in general, if you want to do ANYTHING with a picture that has me on it, you need my ok.
There are exceptions at least here in the US. Out n the streets, or newsworthy events, and you don't have much say.
Am I to take it however, that in Europe pictures of say a crowd at a football game or Festival are illegal?
Fakebook IS making commercial use of the data.
The lawsuit is not questioning Facebook's right to display the images, and running an algorithm on pixels is not a form of commercial use that requires a model release.
We're getting to broad brushing some stuff about model releases here.In a public place, a person has no particular privacy. As well if the image was newsworthy.
Even then, the law is not absolute. If say an attractive woman model is shown sitting at a bar with a bottle of liquor, and used in an advertisement for that liquor, a standard model release is sufficient. If someone uses that same photo in an article about a troubling rise in alcoholic women, or about prostitutes working in bars, the photographer darn well better have had that mentioned in the model release.
While some releases declare "any and all uses", that could become a bit vague, and a judge will almost certainly allow a trial to go forward.
Other possibilities are if someone posts an image of people in a private domicile. Private places have private protections.
And a bar is also private property.
To top it all off, model releases can be held null and void if there is no consideration given, ie money passes hands. So if I have been in a situation where I've used models either at work or a part time video/photo/animation business of mine, they'd get at least 5 dollars. Of course usually much more.
So whether this particular case is involved with copyright, Facebook is facing some issues of privacy if images from a private place are posted. And the path stops at where and who makes the money. A friend might have posted the pictures, so discouraged, but no legal harm. But the property owner will have a case. And if Facebook monetizes a copyrighted image, they owe the copyright holder.
The issue was dealt with during the Google Glass saga, where bar owners asserted their private property privacy rights to tell the Glassholes that they could not stream video in their establishments. IANAL, but I've dealt with this issue over the years.
And I for one will never forgive the SJWs for what they did to Garrison Keillor.
Arrrrgh! I've been triggered! I agree completely. Of all the people, Keillor? When they toasted him, it was a big clue as to just how far they've sunk. Just how incredibly weak third wavers want women to be. Apparently sexual assault is now patting women on the back.
Keillor's firing was so egregious, that that was the turning point for me, not the Ansari Aziz business, where She didn't have fun on a date so that's rape! case.
Oh so it wasn't a real question. It was just bait so you could then rant about whataboutism when someone answered it. Well done, you trolled me well and truly.
No Problem. This is the problem with Trolling. We can all fall to it. And I mean me too.
that oppose prostitution. Care to point any out? I do know a lot that want more social services so women are much less likely to turn to prostitution. But they're all in the "Legal, Taxed & Regulated" crowd.
Oh, they are out there. http://www.womensmediacenter.c...
There is a schism in feminism between sex negative and sex positive. The sex negative version finds that prostitution is exploitation of women by men. I'm not certain how they feel about women going to women prostitutes.
Sex positive feminists tend toward if the woman is doing this of her own free will, then she can do as she wants. Many of the dancers at one of our local "Gentleman's Clubs" are students working their way through college. No one is forcing them, loans are available.
Now, I do know a lot of right wingers who enjoy seeing people punished for their mistakes. Bill O'Reilly and the whole Fox News crowd come to mind.
Well, as long as it is other people's mistakes. Buddy Billy is a first class creeper in his own right, and Roger Aisles and his raw hamburger like genitals are just two of their creeps.
I also know a lot of religious people who are convinced that if we don't get all this sinning under control God's going to wipe us out. Pat Robinson comes to mind.
I've always been amazed that Pat's gawd punishes Southern States for those Liberal Nawthener's sins. Legalize Gay Marriage? Let's send a Hurricane to Mississippi.
But now that both liberals and conservatives have turned sex-negative again, fat chance.
Hopefully this will change. We have seen the (hopefully) ultimate of sex negative in the #metoo movement, which has mixed legitimate events with ones that are one step away from gender apartheid, like the Ansari Assiz event, where a date that a woman didn't enjoy was cast as a legitimate reason to destroy his career. The sex negative outlook of the third wave feminists casts women as fundamentally weak. Fragile minds that are so easily damaged beyond repair that Victorian women would be disgusted by the concept that women are that weak.
So as marriage rates that were already plummeting are coupled with an active avoidance of the frail flowers that cannot withstand any adversity, and the definition of adversity extended to normal interactions - this entire sex negative worldview starts to look like a really bad idea.
And it pisses off normal women who are able to take care of themselves, enjoy sex, and might enjoy their husband sweeping them off their feet for some impromptu wild sex, which is now considered rape in the world of "Yes means yes" where the male must ask permission for every stage of intercourse, and the woman must grant it.
I suspect that the third wave feminists and their useful idiots will be marginalized soon, as more and more people understand the world they are trying to create is going to end as successfully as the shaker movement.
Which itself was just a continuation of WWI.
Almost as though when you win a war and carve up the spoils, the losers feel like they've been unjustly robbed and seek restitution by the only avenue open to them.
Don't really see a whole lot of alternatives though, aside from avoiding warfare or not pillaging the loser while they're down. Not sure which is more unlikely...
A bit of both. Certainly after WW1, the Germans got a bit of nasty punishment. But when you are in a war and lose, you take what you get. So yes, the WW1 ending had a good bit to go with giving rise to the conditions that were a part of starting WW2.
Given the natural abilities that the Germans had - awesome engineering, industriousness, and some latent racism tendencies, coupled with the punishment, it was not terribly surprising that old Adolph found a receptive audience, and had early success.
But it also sealed the approach used against them in the final days of their participation in WW2. The Russians who had been so horribly savaged by Germany earlier in the war, were on a justified vendetta of destruction. The Americans as well, but not to such an extent. But it was a given that the German state was going to be beaten down to the point that they would think twice about starting another war.
Then afterwards having learned from the excessive punishment of WW1, the goal was to help rebuild Germany, and later Japan. Both are now Allies of the USA, which is much better than the alternative.
The German/Russian part of WW2 is as fascinating - if horrifying - bit of History I've ever read. I'd love to hear from our Russian brethren for any insights they have on that.
What I was replying to was: Well, some of us don't live in the EU and want to run desktop Linux not locked-down Win 10 or MacOS junk
Then you replied to the wrong post/person.
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
No, we just ban them from entering the country.
Holy shit! 'Murricans are obviously the worst!
nobnsense
There's a Karl Pilkington joke in there somewhere.