DONTMATTER wrote: » I think this is the problem right here! The men here want to control everything, women standing up for themselves doesn't sit well with them.
seamus wrote: » I agree entirely on certain corners of the web getting all hot and bothered about these things, and the tiny proportion of people who will do or say anything for a bit of attention. But that's of no real consequence. Have we seen any celebrities find themselves in any real trouble; legally, personally or professionally; after a trial by social media? I don't think so.
seamus wrote: » That's interesting though, how much you see this as someone else's cause - as a cause which is adversarial to you. Which in part actually validates DONTMATTER's post. That is, it shouldn't be "your cause". It should be everyone's cause. To say that it's someone else's cause/problem/crusade, is to suggest that you don't believe that it has any validity. Either that, or you're indifferent about it altogether, but the number of posts you have on the topic says that's not the case.
DONTMATTER wrote: » Unless you think all men are rapists and scumbags?
DONTMATTER wrote: » Actually, men questioning women who have been raped and assaulted and calling them liars turns everyone off the men's rights cause, as that is basically their only cause!
Deleted User wrote: » It has nothing to do with #metoo really. He or she has just hijacked it in order to run around screaming "Rape SUPPORTER!!!" at anyone he or she can.
LLMMLL wrote: » Actually it was martingriff who brought it up. Again I have to point out that the vast majority of metoo posts do not name anyone and hence do not ruin any reputations. It’s telling that you keep ignoring this. Yes HC has to be careful not to harass women. How awful.
DONTMATTER wrote: » People here have questioned women's stories, they're believing some random scumbags instead. You wish I legged it!
seamus wrote: » And then they can say that DONTMATTER is clearly some kind of totem for #metoo. When she's not, she's off on tangents of more hardline feminism. Then they can go, "Look at these crazy people and their crazy cause, they're crazy!" When, like you say, most of these have nothing to do with #metoo, or are only loosely related by virtue of being roughly on the topic of sexism or sexual assault.
seamus wrote: » Yes! Now, there you go. Because swanner rennaws's motivation, and clearly needwater's too, is to bundle as much as they can together and say that it's all coming about because of #metoo. And then they can say that DONTMATTER is clearly some kind of totem for #metoo. When she's not, she's off on tangents of more hardline feminism. Then they can go, "Look at these crazy people and their crazy cause, they're crazy!" When, like you say, most of these have nothing to do with #metoo, or are only loosely related by virtue of being roughly on the topic of sexism or sexual assault.
Alessia Spicy Simpleton wrote: » Can you define what the #metoo cause means?
seamus wrote: » The implication from some quarters, and from Henry Cavill's statement is that there are loads of women out there for whom a good night out consists of a bit of a drinking, a bit of dancing, a bit of flirting, and who knows, if you get to throw in some sexual assault allegations against someone, that's the icing on the cake. It's basically the whole "women are evil temptresses trying to distract men from the path of light" nonsense dressed up in modern clothes. The easy answer is that if you're unsure of how to interact with the opposite sex without finding yourself being accused of assault, then maybe you...shouldn't?
[Deleted User] wrote: » Who determines what is appropriate? The woman he is flirting/dating with. Her own perception of the events will decide that. And you have already suggested that we should believe the woman in her claims. So behaving appropriately isn't really much of a defense if a woman becomes offended <for whatever reason>, or decides she would like the publicity of taking down someone popular.
Could you actually answer this one, rather than deflecting it? I was genuinely interested in what your answer would have been.... because I have no idea how a metoo campaign for men would actually be approved/accepted.
LLMMLL wrote: » If a woman posts that she got talking to HC in a bar and he asked for her number then withdrew swiftly when she declined nobody would bat an eyelid.
Rennaws wrote: » I see 2 problems with that statement.. 1) It's not true 2) What constitutes behaving appropriately ? There are crazies out there who think looking at a woman for more then 5 seconds is a form of assault.
We also need to bear in mind that all it takes to ruin a mans career is an accusation. Whether something happened or not is irrelevant. George Hook is a great example of how these self righteous head cases are ruining careers here..
Aziz Ansari was another great example of how some attention seeking headcase with an axe to grind can destroy a career with one post..https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355
LLMMLL wrote: » General consensus. If a woman posts that she got talking to HC in a bar and he asked for her number then withdrew swiftly when she declined nobody would bat an eyelid. It SEEMS you are saying any women can post any random experience, slap #metoo on it, and gain universal support. That’s not how it works.
Omackeral wrote: » A part from that being a bit of a scummy comment from you (the last bit) the poster has a point. It seems some sections almost want a written consent form. The amount of times I've gone home with a girl or vice versa and we've done the no pants dance without either of us explicitly verbalising consent outweighs times when it has been said aloud. This, in some warped minds, equates to no consent and therefore rape.
Alessia Spicy Simpleton wrote: » Aziz Anzari? George Hook? Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding? Scarlett Johannson: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-44829766
Deleted User wrote: » The problem with that logic is that it removes the behavior of the woman from the equation. Her choices. Her perception of the events before, during, and after the experience. Her responsibility for what occurs.
The fact is that women need to make their interest known in very real terms, but that's not going to happen in most cases.
[Deleted User] wrote: » The problem with that logic is that it removes the behavior of the woman from the equation. Her choices. Her perception of the events before, during, and after the experience. Her responsibility for what occurs. On the basis of your logic, any intimacy with a woman is fraught with peril, and therefore should be avoided. The guys who assume that the woman is interested, accepting, and willing for the intimacy to occur, are likely to be the guys that women are complaining about regarding harassment, or sexual assault. And the "nice guys" who don't want to hurt or offend a woman will be encouraged not to be with women. The fact is that women need to make their interest known in very real terms, but that's not going to happen in most cases. Otherwise, there really is no chance of being secure in thinking your "partner" is willing and will remain willing after the fact. So... your advice is that we all just stop dating, or entering into relationships?
Mokuba wrote: » This is pretty ironic and hilarious. Because the specific example you gave has been given as a metoo story. What you write about in your second paragraph is exactly what is happening. Trivial, nothing situations are being slapped with #metoo, when clearly there has been no wrongdoing. That is what the likes of Liam Neeson was saying on the Late Late show and what Cavill is saying here. An unwanted advance, an unwelcome glance, an accidental touch - metoo. And what Cavill is saying can ring true, it's safer to avoid all interaction than risk the wrath of someone hoping to be the next hashtag case. The movement was fine at the outset and now it has descended into utter farce. Women going to social media getting men trialed in the eye of the public with automatic assumption of guilt. Luckily, I don't think people in the real world take too much notice.
I have zero interest in drawing you a roadmap of how a men’s metoo movement should be started, and that’s not a deflection.
LLMMLL wrote: » Jaysus. George Hook was not accused of sexual harrassment. PJ was accused of rape. The complainant testified she said no. Whether you believe her or not is irrelevant. PJ wasn’t prosecuted under some new crazy law about rape where the woman decides after she was raped while seemingly enjoying it at the time. There’s no indication the AAs career has been ruined.
Deleted User wrote: » Universal support, no... but support from those who sympathise with her, yes... which could easily be in the high numbers. And that's with her telling what happened exactly as it did. What if she's had a few drinks and doesn't remember what happened clearly?
seamus wrote: » I don't believe it does. We engage in thousands of interactions every day, which on the face of it require consent from both sides, and many of which involve little interaction beyonds nods and signals and gestures. Letting someone pull out of a side road. Buying something in a shop. Getting off the bus. None of these have clearly defined rules, but as social animals we're pretty good at reading context and non-explicit communication. But sometimes we do get it wrong, we end up pulling out of the side road when we shouldn't have, we end up standing with our money in our hand because the cashier isn't ready to take it, we end up getting off a stop late because we didn't press the bell and assumed the driver would know. This doesn't mean we should "avoid" these interactions. But when it comes to the less mundane activities, such as approaching a potential romantic interest, changing lanes on a motorway, operating heavy machinery, there needs to be less room for assumption. Every party has a role to play to make sure things are safe, but if the other party isn't playing their role, then you stop what you're doing. Someone else cannot be responsible for your actions any more than you can for theirs. So if they're leaving room for doubt, you stop and walk away.
Women will have to adapt their approach, like men are having to.
And the ones who don't are going to find themselves really confused as to why their coy, aloof and game-playing tactics leave them lonely, while their more direct and blunt friends have a number of good relationships.
I feel that people who go on about "consent forms" and the level of explicit discussion that needs to take place, do not have a firm grasp on how to determine if you're reasonably sure about someone else's intent.
You don't have to be absolutely certain. You don't need things signed on the dotted line or a video recording of the other person saying, "I do".
I do understand the fear aspect here; the impact that an accusation can have on a man's life. But the level of fear has to be weighed up against the reality. The woman approached in a bar is not looking around for some guy she can accuse of an assault, any more than the guy is approaching her thinking about whether he'll be able to rape her. So long as both people are respectful of the other and their state of inebriation, there's minimal "peril".
Deleted User wrote: » 20 years ago cases like this were essentially non-existent. They weren't noted at all. In the last year there have been a few noted in the papers, and probably quite a few more which weren't reported in the media. The point is that while it's probably rare, it's happening more often. As society and the law give women more attention about these issues, it stands to reason that such cases will increase in frequency. Especially when the areas of what is consent or abuse remain so vague.
Deleted User wrote: » All your examples are common enough... and I would have agreed with you had the perceptions about dating or intimate interactions hadn't changed over the last decade or so. But the fact is that this area has changed, and your examples are light-years away from it. Your examples about driving are even worse, because we have rule-sets which clearly decide what should happen in each situation, and a fairly clear idea of who is responsible should an error occur. None of your examples, have the male being taken in for questioning or being arrested due to the claim of a female. There is no rule book for romantic/intimate interactions between people.... so perhaps think of the above and use an example that actually relates to this topic area?
Who says? Society has shifted to considering women to be victims and no longer to be held responsible for what happens to them. Their choices, behavior, etc can no longer be held as important in deciding what happened, because that would be victim-blaming.... So, no... Women won't need to change because all responsibility rests with the male.
More likely that women will receive a greater proportion of attention from the Aholes, and drunks, further encouraging the belief that it's not a minority of males who behave that way... since the nice guys won't be making their approaches (due to your logic).
The reason why it's so important though is that consent can be withdrawn at any time.
20 years ago cases like this were essentially non-existent. They weren't noted at all. In the last year there have been a few noted in the papers, and probably quite a few more which weren't reported in the media. The point is that while it's probably rare, it's being spoken about more often
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
