Men of boards, what innocent behaviors have you changed out of fear?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OK, fine. What would you have me prove?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It might be. If the female teacher is attractive at all its completely over publicised though

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

The way things are going, It's not easy being a man in society today.

This seems redundant. We can't keep a train of thought on topic without 10 pages of "MY OPINION" regarding a completely different issue.

Anyway, there is a young girl (secondary school age) who walks her dog in the same green as I walk mine. If its a case that she is the only person there I will go elsewhere. Similarly, I'll cross the road at night approaching lone or elderly women.

To say that is wrong is to have not experience how uncomfortable society is with (relatively) young men (although, by all accounts we are privileged in comparison to other groups in society.)

Ella Stale Rule wrote: »

It may be perceived as sensible but it would be much more sensible if these precautions did not have to be taken and the more people think these precautions are necessary the more they will become requirements.

If people stopped taking the precautions then it would be less likely for it to become the norm. I'm not saying you are wrong to do it but you shouldn't have to worry if you chose not to either.

Of course I shouldn't have to worry , 100% agree, I just never want to be ever put in a position where I could have done something awful and can't prove I haven't. It's **** but honestly that's how it is 😕

professore wrote: »

You do realise that discussing something is not the same as everyone nodding their heads and agreeing with each other? You sound very like the nuns that forbade any questions like if God was so good, why did he allow children to die of hunger. This is the new normal, where "free speech" is allowed only if it agrees rigidly with the status quo.

Thinking being gay or trans is a condition is not the same thing as being homophobic. Not in the least. I think coeliac disease is a condition but that's not the same thing at all as thinking that coeliacs are somehow inferior or whatever.

I think the mistake the people who abuse the terms "free speech" and "IMO" here and all across the interwebs make is that while yes everyone is entitled to their opinion, not all opinions are created equal. Too often you see "well its my opinion and I'm entitled to it" used as a brickbat to try and stifle any debate like as if everything is subjective and opinion matters more then Fact, but sorry that argument only works in things like film/art/book criticism where you can't have a wrong opinion just a different one. Some things however are objectively right/wrong and throwing an IMO at the end doesn't somehow immunise you're opinion from criticism. And quite frankly anyone who had a cogent argument and was open to debate wouldn't resort to using it.

Also while I have no doubt the man who started this line of argument(homosexuality/free speech) me_right_one was telling the truth when he said he doesn't hurl abuse or act overtly homophobic , if this anti PC "I can say whatever I want" movement that Trumps at the forefront of is good at anything , its creating an atmosphere where timid people who hold these views feel brave enough to become vocal and those who were already vocal to become violent. Look at the rise in hate crimes since Brexit/Trump. People previously constrained by societal norms saw a man attain the highest office in the land on the back of some of the most hateful rhetoric ever seen in an election and thought f**k it, if he's not holding back I'm not either. My point is while it might be tempting to let an ill informed/ignorant opinion go unchallenged under the guise of free speech, all it serves to do is normalize ignorance.

And I don't buy this historical we challenged the status quo in favour of women and civil rights thus everything is fair game guff , those status quo's were rightly challenged to give those two groups rights that had been denied them. The sort of opinions that you often see the "free speech brigade" seek to protect are ones that seek to dehumanize and demean with terms like "its a Mental illness" , "Not Normal" a "mistake". In short some opinions are on the right side of morality and history and need to be protected and some are not and need to be challenged.

seamus wrote: »

All of the above pseudo-science about evolution and one's body apparently knowing what it's doing also ignores all of the research which suggests that homosexuality itself as a trait confers an evolutionary advantage on the community in which that individual lives. If it was an "error" it would have disappeared. The fact that it exists suggests that it's not an "error" at all and has in fact specifically evolved because of the evolutionary advantage it provides.

What's the evolutionary theory behind this?

My own idea for the reason the vast majority of societies in history hating homosexuals was because of the fact gay sex leads to far higher rates of disease than heterosexual sex. In an era where disease could wipe you out in a way it wouldn't today (sexual diseases were far bigger problems in the past), people saw what they saw and attributed it to say, god. Thanks to medicine, that isn't really a problem these days, hence one of the reasons for the increased tolerance.

Also, they've done a lot of genetic twin studies and whatnot, and the general conclusion is that its about 30% heritable, so there is a genetic component but it's surprisingly small. Compared to IQ or height, which are about 70% for example.

schmittel wrote: »

Who gets to decide what opinions need to be protected and what opinions need to be challenged?

Its up to everybody. If its a positive empowering opinion/position where an oft persecuted minority is concerned then it needs protecting if its a demeaning opinion about same then it needs challenging. You know ... your basic do unto others as you would like done unto you stuff . Its not rocket science.

Madeline Handsome Ump wrote: »

On the 1850s equivalent of the internet there were probably people arguing the case for how Irish people couldn't help being robbing fighting bastards, phrenology proves it and sorry if you don't like facts!

Evolutionary psychology and biology is a soft enough science that it can be used to back up prejudice pretty easily. It's amazing how people seem to genuinely believe that they come to it as a blank slate of pure logic and it somehow just backs up everything they already thought.

everything that doesn't bow to minority groups is prejudice.

me_right_one wrote: »

I'm not homophobic. . Having a penis when your mind tells you you should have a vagina therefore, is also a physical illness.

Funny but my penis is always telling me that he should have a vagina , he is no sooner out of one than he wants to enter another . My penis has a mind of his own . He is very assertive and always stands up for himself in the presence of attractive women.

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I wonder is it partially caused by people's fixation on bad news that perpetuates a lot of this codology. Nobody really wants to hear about how someone is a great lad and all the nice things he does like handing out sweets and giving kids lifts home from school if they're caught in the rain.

If you add a sinister element and vilify him as a perv everyone gathers around the table with pointed ears to hear the next installment of the story. Those people will go on to spread the news "I heard so-and-so down the road did this and that thing which means he could possibly very well be a dirty perv beware stay well away"

Yes that's probably part of it and I also there is an element of fear mongering that goes on both in the media and on the streets.

And I have come across many situations where a woman has had a bad experience with a man in her life and uses as a stick to beat all men with.