Me Too

And since one is asking to them fools, one would also love to know why one doesn't try and ban cat-calling by law, if it's soooo bad?

Thanks for that, BTW.

Why is it so hard to expect common decency from you?

Because I don't automatically agree with a gang of hysterical thumb monkeys, that's why.

If common decency is to deny free speech, call me indecent.

Not if that free speech invokes fear or panic.

I see there's an issue of free speech. Yet I see everybody is posting as often as they like on here. I don't see that anybody is being censored. I noticed a month or so back that this thread will lie fallow. But as soon as something supportive of MeToo gets posted the two I ignored flood the thread to stifle any positive words. Have at it, dudes.

Why don't you stop waisting time and tell me exactly what type of sexually explicit sentences one is allowed to say in the street, and which one isn't? Because if the idea is to ban any and all forms of sexual talk, always, everywhere, I vote against that.

Are you really saying you don't know what sexual harassment consists of?

Really?

Actually, I think he is saying that you don't know what sexual harassment consists of.

The guy who caused an outcry (and almost job) when he said "women's lingire" on an elevator. Was that sexual harrassment or not.

Anything can be sexual harrassment. That's the problem sweetheart.

This is sexual harassment.

I don't agree with you. That's exactly the problem. As a matter of fact, I think it is ridiculous that you would say this is sexual harrassment. My posts are not a threat to you. It is clearly a joke. I have no power over you or responsibility to you.

At least you didn't call it rape.

You’re too easy, Max.

I believe we've had this conversation before. It didn't change your mind nor did it mine.

The examples I provided shows how catcalling can turn dangerous, even deadly for women. Again, you want to play semantics.

You started with a conclusion and then you cherry-picked examples that proved your conclusion. You ignored all of the examples that contradict your conclusion.

- There are lots of time women and men are catcalled and nothing happens. Sometimes it is in good fun and enjoyed by both sides. Sometimes one side is annoyed but then goes on with his or her life.

- There are lots of times women and men face attacks, even deadly attacks, where no catcalling is involved.

Anecdotes don't show anything.

And sometimes women get killed.

Do you want to pick out which time that happens? No? No crystal ball?

Then don't do it.

The other problem with MeToo is that it puts everything into absolute extremes.

There are all sorts of "catcalls".

1) Among friends as consensual play.

2) On the internet (as we just demonstrated) where no one is at risk.

3) In public during the daytime where no one is at risk.

4) At a club (or even a strip club) where it is public and expected and this there isn't any immediate risk,

5) At work, where there is a professional environment, risk to a career, and often a real power dynamic.

6) In a dark alley or alone where any reasonable person would feel threatened.

7) Immediately preceding a physical assault with the intent to terrorize a victim.

It isn't logical to lump all of this together. I assume that Neptune would consider most of these to be sexual harrassment. Hopefully she can see the difference.

I would say numbers 1-4 (in order of acceptability) are acceptable (depending of course on the details). They certainly are not sexual harrassment.

#5 will rightfully get someone fired.
#6 is deeply troubling even if no assault happens and should be a crime.
#7 is clearly a crime

I don't know how many murders of women are preceded by cat-calls. If you found out that people who make cat-calls are less likely to kill women, would your logic hold?

Not really, no. If you pay close attention to my post, you will understand that I was asking you a question. That was signaled by the use of a question mark ("?").

You may wish to try and answer the question now.

So what do you propose we do about it?

I don't think she is denying you 'free speech'. I believe she is asking you not to assume all young women want to be grouped, or verbally humiliated when they are in public....but every so often you mention how much more accomadationg French women are to unwelcome grouping or filthy comments from strangers....Yeah, I think you are deluded about boundaries ...... but by all means, keep talking about your understanding about women....that's free speech....but don't complain when women on several continents use their free speech to say you are bending the rules and credulity when you express that WOMEN are thumb monkeys or denying you free speech.

That was my attempt to soften the blow, if you assume women are stupid, go with God, and God help you.