Off Topic Does this offend you?

[The RDBD]

Anyone ever notice how most self labelled "Feminists" these days, are fat and ugly as ****?

Coincidence?

I am waiting for the messiah of feminists to appear.
A woman :

1. Of great intelligence and beauty.

2. Who never has experienced or witnessed physical/
mental abuse as/of a woman at the hands of a man.

and is therefore debating the feminist topic solely on the
facts and no prior "baggage" .


And what happens when this messiah appears ??
Her own gender will turn on her out of envy (mainly
due to 1) .

 

[BobbyD]

I don’t think your logic works. No one is arguing that it should be forbidden for women to dress sexily. The job of catwalk models is to sell sexy clothes. What exactly is the job of the F1 grid girls? Back in the day it was to entice punters in. It probably worked. These days it probably doesn’t.

why do we even need sexy clothes? we shouldn't be sexualising women at all and if we do, why are we just choosing pretty attractive girls, we should be making it compulsory that for every "normal" sized model, theres needs to be a plus sized one, an "uglier" one and not be drilling into people "this is what is attractive".

 

[Bodinki]

Its also demeaning to men to think that because a woman is dressed a certain way, that it will encourage ordinary men to become rapists?
Is that what they think happens?
Normal good little Johnny walks down the street, catches a site of cleavage and turns into Johnny 23 and starts molesting folk?

90% of (sober) men know how to behave when they see an attractive woman.

 

[The RDBD]

why do we even need sexy clothes? we shouldn't be sexualising women at all and if we do, why are we just choosing pretty attractive girls, we should be making it compulsory that for every "normal" sized model, theres needs to be a plus sized one, an "uglier" one and not be drilling into people "this is what is attractive".

I got this one, Bobby (I am merely awaiting the reply) .

 

[The RDBD]

Its also demeaning to men to think that because a woman is dressed a certain way, that it will encourage ordinary men to become rapists?
Is that what they think happens?

This may be a time-honoured patriarchal view
(the "she is asking for it" claim) .

However in the second decade of the 21st century,
I would expect a scientific body of knowledge to
exist that shows that in the primal human "hard-wiring" ,
males will succumb to such acts in a compulsive
uncontrollable manner far more easily than females
would in the same situation.

 

[Bodinki]

This may be a time-honoured patriarchal view
(the "she is asking for it" claim) .

However in the second decade of the 21st century,
I would expect a scientific body of knowledge to
exist that shows that in the primal human "hard-wiring" ,
males will succumb to such acts in a compulsive
uncontrollable manner far more easily than females
would in the same situation.

Really?
Because I dont

 

[Burly Hurley]

That's such a muddled comment Bod, I don't think you've understood or read what I was saying.

I'm saying that the Jewish and Muslim community (not exclusively) are repressing women, by making them dress in a way that quells men's sexual desires. It also quells women's sexual desires too. Women can't 'choose' what to wear in those communities as they are labelled as whores and sometimes even physically assaulted if they dress in a way that is considered to be 'promiscuous'

That to me is more repressive than telling women that they can't wear sexy clothes or work as F1 grid girls etc.

I dont think so

 

[The RDBD]

Really?
Because I dont

If there is no scientific basis as to why women will
be in danger from men by dressing in a certain way,
then the patriarchal "asking for it" lore of various
cultures is formally dead (it is not akin to the
'prey flee response' of cats etc) .

 

[Number 1 Jasper]

Exact same apparently for grand Tour cycling races.

A few seconds in sight of the general public at the
beginning/end of a stage, and hours doing out of
sight corporate stuff in between. Assuming the
"out of sight" stuff is not akin to that London charity
event the other week, is the complaint over those
few seconds ??

They work for more than just a few seconds .

 

[Bodinki]

If there is no scientific basis as to why women will
be in danger from men by dressing in a certain way,
then the patriarchal "asking for it" lore of various
cultures is formally dead.

The "asking for it" excuse is bullshit.
Women are never asking for it, unless they open their mouths and say "**** me".
A woman can wear what she wants, and if anyone thinks that is an invitation to sexually assault someone, then said person needs to be castrated and/or thrown in prison.
I know such twats exist, but they are in such the vast minority, that it pisses me off when so called "Feminists" try to demonise all men as rapists.
Wolf whistling (whilst childish and inane) is not the same as raping someone, and to equate the two is completely abhorrent and disrespectful to law abiding males.

 

[The RDBD]

They work for more than just a few seconds .

The comment is about the proportion of time the
podium girls are doing a job in front of the general
public (and the alleged cause of the outcry) to the
proportion of time they are doing a job out of sight
(the corporate stuff etc) .

 

[The RDBD]

The "asking for it" excuse is bullshit.

It is deeply entrenched though in some cultures.


"Wolf whistling (whilst childish and inane) is not the same as raping someone, and to equate the two is
completely abhorrent and disrespectful to law abiding males."

Indeed.

 

[PINKIE]

This is about fat ugly lesbian feminists, and not the merits of religious dresswear.

Well that as well, just as bad as the religious repression imo

 

[PINKIE]

why do we even need sexy clothes? we shouldn't be sexualising women at all and if we do, why are we just choosing pretty attractive girls, we should be making it compulsory that for every "normal" sized model, theres needs to be a plus sized one, an "uglier" one and not be drilling into people "this is what is attractive".

Again this ignores Women's sexual desires. Women like to feel sexy, wear sexy clothes and feel desirable. It's not all about what men want.

 

[Number 1 Jasper]

The comment is about the proportion of time the
podium girls are doing a job in front of the general
public (and the alleged cause of the outcry) to the
proportion of time they are doing a job out of sight
(the corporate stuff etc) .

I get your point .

 

[brb]

Genuine question, not trying to suggest an opinion either way...

If i was to touch a woman, say for example stroke her leg, and if that action was unwarranted, it would be classed as some form of assault, am i correct?

However, if i was to employ a woman to dress up very scantily for public display at my place as work, because i can afford to pay her to do so (ie I'm a millionaire, namely Branson or Ecclestone) is that not the same type of assault but instead not this time on the woman (because in this situation she has agreed acceptance to be treated like that) but is it not assault indirectly on women?

Sorry if it's not worded very well but hopefully you get my point.

 

[Commachio]

Again this ignores Women's sexual desires. Women like to feel sexy, wear sexy clothes and feel desirable. It's not all about what men want.

Spot on

 

[The RDBD]

Genuine question, not trying to suggest an opinion either way...

Rapist !!!


"If i was to touch a woman, say for example stroke her leg, and if that action was unwarranted, it would be classed as some form of assault, am i correct?

However, if i was to employ a woman to dress up very scantily for public display at my place as work,
because i can afford to pay her to do so (ie I'm a millionaire, namely Branson or Ecclestone) is that
not the same type of assault but instead not this time on the woman (because in this situation she
has agreed acceptance to be treated like that) but is it not assault indirectly on women?

Sorry if it's not worded very well but hopefully you get my point."

The second is not "assault" , but IMHO a male "because I can" .

My primary moral mantra is : Can I ?? Should I ??

So those rich men can (they have the financial means) , but
should they (irrespective of whether the women are willing) ??

For me the answer is no.

 

[Bodinki]

Genuine question, not trying to suggest an opinion either way...

If i was to touch a woman, say for example stroke her leg, and if that action was unwarranted, it would be classed as some form of assault, am i correct?

However, if i was to employ a woman to dress up very scantily for public display at my place as work, because i can afford to pay her to do so (ie I'm a millionaire, namely Branson or Ecclestone) is that not the same type of assault but instead not this time on the woman (because in this situation she has agreed acceptance to be treated like that) but is it not assault indirectly on women?

Sorry if it's not worded very well but hopefully you get my point.

Its nothing alike.
In the first scenario, thats sexual assault.

In the second scenario, 1) The woman, presumably, is not being touched in any way and 2) She is consenting to the deal.

Infact it is the complete opposite to a sexual assault.
If there is consent and No contact, that is not rape, it is when there is contact and NO consent, that it is rape.

 

[brb]

My primary moral mantra is : Can I ?? Should I ??

So those rich men can (they have the financial means) , but
should they (irrespective of whether the women are willing) ??

For me the answer is no.

Exactly my point. Personally I think Branson is a bit of sleaze bag and because he has the money he thinks he can parade women (and does) how he chooses. This is in the same way men used to think it was ok to make sexual remarks about women in the work place. In decades to come i believe Branson may be looked back on in the same light. I'm not just picking on Branson here but just using him as example as a well known male.

But you summed it up nicely, so those rich men can but should they, NO!