Sexual harassment and rape allegations rapidly being fired off against various streamers
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
Recommended Videos
How do I put this clearer...as I see it based on the individuals involved, their material connections, and the clear network of implications and conflicted interests, the "Time's Up" movement and foundation specifically aren't for greater transparency and accountability in public figures and defending women who come forward with sexual abuse allegations. They're damage control and a (successful) play to get ahead of and co-opt the #MeToo movement, to direct backlash away from politically inconvenient targets. In my opinion, you can't look at the rogue's gallery involved and come to any conclusion other than it's by, of, and for Weinstein associates as a firewall against further inquiry to limit damage to themselves.
USA
I call BS on a " war on males" . There is no war on men. It is utter nonsense.
1) " intent" is not needed to be disrespectful. The problem is however, that in some social circles, men have been taught that being disrespectful to women is normal, so they literally do not know that what they are doing is disrespectful. That does not suddenly make it any less disrespectful, it just makes the people doing this ignorant. It should be treated no different than " ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it" . This should be crystal clear: THE WORKPLACE IS NOT A DATING SITE, ( unless you actually work for a dating site, but even then, you are there to work not find a mate for yourself). Many people have a "No dating in the workplace" work ethic, and do not mix the two, so you should not expect them to. Even when I was bartending in college, I had a " no dating coworkers or customers" policy as well. This has nothing to do with how compatible we are or how attractive they were, it has to do with a choice of not mixing work and personal life and conducting one's self in a professional manner. I literally had hundreds of men hitting on me a night and it gets old fast. Who you date, when and where is a choice, and not one that should be imposed upon others in their workplace when they are forced to be there. subjecting a person to unwanted advances in their workplace does create a hostile environment because they cannot just leave the situation and are forced to interact with the aggressor on a regular basis. It is also not only what you say, but how you say it, your body language, how you look at someone and the tone and context used. If you are licking your lips or acting like you want to eat them for lunch, it is creepy regardless of how good looking you think you are if it is unwanted. Just telling someone " you look good today" is usually harmless, but even that can be made gross by how you choose to say it. If you are like " oh mama, you look gooood today" mhmm.. That is going to be much different than an innocent compliment. But there is also the issue of women simply being tired of being valued only by their appearance, complimenting a woman on her actual work and accomplishments and who she is as person is better than complimenting her on the appearance of her ass.
2)Of course women pushed for sexual harassment workplace laws because, like I stated above, Work is for work you are forced to be there to provide for your household, dating is for outside of work where you have a choice to leave the situation. There is no place for dating in the workplace. Even if you work with your spouse, work should be separate and should be treated as such. This also should be made crystal clear: You can be attracted to someone and still NOT consent. Simply being sexually attracted to someone does not mean you consent to have them do whatever they want to you. That does not mean you want to have sex at that moment, or even at all. Consent and sexual attraction are separate. I do not consider rape in a marriage a " legal term" rape is rape regardless of the relationship status of the person being raped. A Wife can be raped by her husband. A man can be raped by his wife. Neither are okay and both should be treated the same as any other rape.
I oppose the draft for anyone and it has been repeatedly shown that it endangers the lives of others to put people on the field that did not choose to be there. Though, I am not sure what that has to do with rape, outside of it being men who decided that women should not be on the battlefield thus not subject to the draft, not women. I oppose ANYONE male or female being drafted. If the cause is worth fighting for, people will volunteer to do so on their own, if they do not, they deserve to lose. People should not be forced to fight for other's wars.
Some guys actually think that getting a girl drunk is the only way they will ever have sex. Some guys think that they won't be able to work up the 'nerve to make a move on a woman without being drunk themselves. Some girls feel the same way. Even if alcohol was not involved, however, in the scenario you stated above, the same would apply. Sounds like the guy didn't check with her first to see how far she wanted to take it. ANY action after she said no is illegal as he no longer had consent. A guy not taking no for an answer though is all on him at that point regardless of what happened before that point. Fingering someone at a frat party isn't what leads to marriage, there would have to be a whole lot outside of that to get to that point. That would actually make it less likely rather than more likely to lead to a more solid relationship in the first place.
I am not sure what you are on about in regards to the future, but as far as relationships go, they would not be any different than consensual, loving, respectful relationships are now. When two people respect and deeply love one another, they care about the other's needs, feelings and happiness and both work together to obtain mutual goals as well as help the other accomplish their goals. That is how it should be instead of either party treating the other as inferior or obligated. if there is a lack of understanding or compassion in a relationship, then it is an unhealthy relationship that likely shouldn't exist.
If that's their goal, it is a spectacular failure. The last time I looked at a MGTOW sub-reddit 99% of the posts were just bitterly complaining about women. MGTOW is just another coping mechanism for being an unlikable asshole.
Or a huge meteor could crash through the window and kill me while I'm getting a blowjob. What is our future when random space detritus can cruelly slaughter men in the privacy of their own bedrooms while they're getting a blowie?
A little vulgarity helps to get people's attention.
I see what you mean. And you're not wrong. There are a lot of people involved with ulterior motives. I still think the cause is worth standing up for, even if some of its public faces are self-serving phonies.
It does seriously appear to be a group of men who want to behave like a sexist asshole and then complain when they are treated as such. Like there is some sort of " war on men" simply because they cannot force others to " do what they want" and women some how have their own thoughts, feelings and determine their own actions for themselves. The horror!!
No disagreement there, it absolutely is. That it happens is sick enough, but it takes a very certain kind of "above and beyond the call of duty" awful to co-opt and manipulate inquiry and search for justice. But as distasteful as it is, the question stands as to who is worse: sexual predators, or those who consider sexual predators disposable assets for the pursuit of naked self-interest?
That's the Damocles' sword hanging over the gaming industry and pop culture sub-communities in particular. We've seen years' of in-group dramatis personae and obvious sexual predators defended to the very eyeteeth against any and all comers, until the cost/benefit analysis of defense flips at which point they're thrown upon a sacrificial pyre to protect the pack. "Reset the clock" isn't a meme in this context just because it's funny.
This is why how individuals will respond to the Hassan Bokhari allegations is, honestly, more important than the allegations themselves. I know I for one am waiting with positively bated breath to see how many ZombiUnicorns, Pokimanes, Kaceytrons, and Alinities (some of whom making great social hay of literally everyone accused but Hassan), direct that same condemnation towards Hassan.
The War on men would make a good topic in and of itself. I may post one soon.
In criminal law, intent means a great deal unless you are speaking of very minor issues like parking tickets.
You really want a sexless work place? No high heels. No makeup. No flirting with the boss. Maybe uniforms at work so we are all sexless looking. Black pajamas. And more. Sounds very cold and authoritarian to me.
A lot of people in those forums are still in what is referred to as the red pill rage. Anger that apparently, their real purpose in society is to be treated as an exploitable, disposable utility.
And odds matter. How often are you hit by a meteor? How often do women lie about and otherwise abuse men?
Last edited:
No, ignorance of the law does not play as much of a role as you seem to think. When the judge sends you to jail for a DWI, they could care less if you intended to get drunk and drive. The Judge could care less if you knew it was illegal or not. If you didn't know it was illegal to set a building on fire, you are still jailed for arson. If you didn't know it was illegal to lure someone onto your property and kill them, you will STILL be charged for murder.
"Sex less" workplace? Not having people hit on you at work =\= women suddenly not being women. Women should be able to dress like women if they choose to dress like women. Women should be able to wear makeup if they want to wear makeup. That has nothing to do with sex or inviting someone to hit on them. Women wear makeup for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with a man hitting on them while at work. Not having people hit on you at work is a completely separate issue than women existing in this world as women. It is absurd you think that some how the two are related. It is like 'OMGAWD, if I can't hit on the womenz they can no longer looks like the womenz!" It is ignorant and women do not need to be erased or present themselves as not being women simply because we expect men to behave themselves in a professional manner while at work. Women should not be forced to hide their " womanhood" because men are not capable of controlling themselves. Women should be able to wear heels if they like, they also should not have to wear heels if they do not wish to as well. That is irrelevant to how men conduct themselves however.
Not quite right. Guy A takes a bazooka and shoots Guy B point blank in the face. Court finds he was insane and thought he was in Doom fighting imps. He'll get some time in an institution and released when deemed well. His intent and mens rea are relevant.
But, taking you at your word: let's say you do not wear high heels at work to accentuate your butt and cause your gate to sway: you really just want to display that you are ready to join an ancient Calvary. Fine. Regardless, men find you sexually enticing when you wear them. Intentional or not, you are advertising sexuality at the work place. And again, if the RIGHT guy does react, he may get laid rather than fired. I think you are creating impossible or horribly unfair standards.
He might on the path to blowing getting laid, because he's just offended her.
A critical error is often to think equate the hotness of a man in a woman's eye with physical attractiveness. If you go to a club where people are drunk and maybe looking for a quick screw, perhaps looks will get most of the way. In the kind of environment I work in, women respond much more to charm, good personality and getting on well. At the point you can deploy a term like "You look gorgeous" positively instead of sleazily, you will already have be well on the way to getting laid by having built up a good relationship with them.
Inappropriate male soliticitousness.
Firstly, work is for work, and most women I work with want to treat it that way and treated first and foremost as work colleagues. You can form an intimate relationship with people from your workplace (I have in the past) - but do it by asking them very simply and straightforwardly if they want to go out for a drink, to see a film, or even less subtlely, a meal. The implication should be clear, and if they decline don't push the tiniest inch further, although you can leave the offer on the table: "Sure, fine, if you change your mind just let me know". If they accept it's moved the issue of out the workplace and you can go further.
Men can mistake mutual fun for sexual interest and flirting (so can women, but let's topically stick to men here).
If they dialled back in the heat of the moment, they might stop to think sometimes the fun they're having isn't actually any different from the sorts of fun they have with other male or female friends. But what's going on is the man feels a frisson and this drives him to misjudge the situation and the woman. Okay, so it turns out to be a miscalculation. Well, don't be a dick about it: "Sorry, my mistake, I thought we were getting on really well and you might have been interested. Ignore it." Might be awkward, but it's a million times better than taking it as an insult to ego, or insisting the woman definitely was flirting and has deceived you, and going into a sulky rage that's going to create a lingering hostility.
It is perhaps more complex because the woman can also be misjudging the situation: she might not realise the man is interested, and that he is mistaking the fun for deeper interest. It's not a reason to blame her. Sometimes the woman also feels something, and she's gets flirty in actuality despite not wanting to take it further. That's going to be a bit of a blow, but even still, it's just a matter of keeping one's shit together and not flipping into a rage.
Having a mental disability has Zero to do with ignorance of the law. DO not conflate the two as being the same, they are not.
I have never worn heels to affect my butt, I wear them because I have extremely high arches and they are more comfortable than most shoes due to the actual shape of my feet:
High arches
High arches usually don't cause problems but they can sometimes be a source of pain. Various treatments can provide relief.
Last edited:
No, they're just being assholes. And if society treats you as disposable, that is not a product of feminism but capitalism.
And between being falsely accused and being struck by a meteor I can confidently state that neither has ever happened to me.
Admittedly, I haven't played the Game in a long period of time.
... but to suffice to say, there weren't a ton of women who were interested in playing with me. The no's were tremendous and seemingly never ending.
The problem didn't arise because when I got the no, I either accepted it because it was a passing attraction or I had to end the relationship because she wanted to be friends and I had romantic feelings that friendship couldn't sate.
I never got loud, I never got vulgar with my language, I never felt owed something or demanded anything. I took my many, many L's and moved on.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
HA, no. Actually using a plea of insanity itself is very rare and using it successfully is extremely rare. Not to mention that if they are institutionalized then they tend to be stuck in the institution longer then a prison sentence would be.
Women can snap their fingers and have sex. Men have 8 times the testosterone with corresponding physical craving but at a millionth of an opportunity the average woman has. Then there is the 80/20 rule that 80% of women only find 20% of men attractive. In other words; men trying their chances with any woman they can is always going to be a problem. The frustration men experience is something women can't relate too while the intimidation women experience from unwanted attention is something so alien to men that they can't relate too.
You can't deny nature doesn't have a cruel sense of humor.
You can't deny nature doesn't have a cruel sense of humor.
Yikes, something going wrong: trying to post...
I hope the guy (a jerk making a woman uncomfortable) gets in trouble if he's acting up. Again, I like #metoo. I'm just having a problem with the same conduct having such radically different responses BY LAW depending upon who you are.
As for something being "inappropriate" or not, again, seems to depend upon who you are, not just what you do.
Curious: What do you think of Anita Sarkeesian's position... that there is something wrong with the male sex drive. That we are attracted to certain visuals causing us to, in her words, "objectify" women. And that is bad. Not what you may do if you like the look of, say, woman's bust. That you like it at all in the first place makes you bad.
I object.
My point is, in criminal law, intent matters.
1: conceding that ignorance of the law is no excuse. But intent does matter. It's central most of the time. I throw a bottle at a trash can and it hits and kills you by accident, they don't give me the chair. It was an accident.
2: Women existing as women is not advertising. Intent or not: while you may be a rare exception, when women preen and wear high heels, for the most part, they are trying to make themselves attractive. OK, and some are letting the world know they are ready to join the Calvary. I do not want a cold, sterile black pajama wearing environment. But what is good for the goose...
I hope the guy (a jerk making a woman uncomfortable) gets in trouble if he's acting up. Again, I like #metoo. I'm just having a problem with the same conduct having such radically different responses BY LAW depending upon who you are.
As for something being "inappropriate" or not, again, seems to depend upon who you are, not just what you do.
Curious: What do you think of Anita Sarkeesian's position... that there is something wrong with the male sex drive. That we are attracted to certain visuals causing us to, in her words, "objectify" women. And that is bad. Not what you may do if you like the look of, say, woman's bust. That you like it at all in the first place makes you bad.
I object.
My point is, in criminal law, intent matters.
1: conceding that ignorance of the law is no excuse. But intent does matter. It's central most of the time. I throw a bottle at a trash can and it hits and kills you by accident, they don't give me the chair. It was an accident.
2: Women existing as women is not advertising. Intent or not: while you may be a rare exception, when women preen and wear high heels, for the most part, they are trying to make themselves attractive. OK, and some are letting the world know they are ready to join the Calvary. I do not want a cold, sterile black pajama wearing environment. But what is good for the goose...
Heck, when I was young, my father's secretary cautioned me to always figure it was my imagination as I was a 24 hour a day walking around erection and it pretty much always IS my imagination. I took her advice to heart. Missed out on some sex, but stayed out of trouble as well.
Or nature. Sperm is cheap. Someone to gestate a baby? That takes 9 months. So the men are disposable, regardless of the economic system. Stalin beat Hitler pretty much by throwing some 20 million men at him. I've seen pictures of the carnage. Hard to even imagine.
Last edited:
...
And I am a man. I have testosterone running through me. When my temper gets up, my fists are clenched, I'm running through every year of my life training in martial arts and I can break down how I'd destroy this person if I just let go.
But I don't. Because while I'm a man, I'm in a society. I walk around dressed because it is what society wants. I don't soil myself because I'm an adult and I can hold it. I don't take things from other people even if I want it because I know it's wrong and it would be hurting others. There are a million things we all have to contend with regardless of our body compositions and hormones racing through them.
And the intimidation from unwanted attention? So very, very familiar. I do not run in my 94.6 white neighborhood. I'm supposed to readily explain myself and what I'm doing to anyone who demands that information or else the cops come my way. Hoodies are suspicious on me, I can't apparently dance without it being sketchy, I must wear the right clothes or my danger level rises... yeah, it's very easy to understand what scrutiny women go through.
And add the frustration of if a bad situation happens, the first thing people do is question what rule did you break to invite this onto yourself.
I'm talking sexual attention here. The chances you get so much sexual attention from women you feel intimidated by it is very unlikely indeed. The opposite is most likely true. This discrepancy is the basis for all the misunderstanding. Surely, there is ill-intent with many men but most are just botched attempts at intimacy or sex that doesn't exactly hand itself over on a silver platter, unlike for women. It's simple supply & demand. Female sexual interest is scarce and in limited supply, men's sexual interest is high and disposable. One can never intuitively understand the other.
I'd suggest that you perhaps try speaking to some of these women you're so ridiculously generalizing here. This is some grade A incel-level nonsense.