Henry Cavill forced to apologize for #metoo comments

Mokuba · 17-07-2018 11:26AM

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.

You tell everybody you are leaving 4 times in grand proclamations. You come back each time with more bile.

Yet you accuse me of not wanting women standing up for themselves because I have pointed out your mental, attention seeking behaviour?

Bore off.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 17-07-2018 11:26AM

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.

Aziz Anzari?
George Hook?
Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding?

Scarlett Johannson: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-44829766

7aubzxk43m2sni · 17-07-2018 11:27AM

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.

It's difficult because the cause is not clearly defined.

Of course the majority of people are against sexual harassment, violence, etc. Does that not go without saying?

17-07-2018 11:29AM

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's cause is to blindly believe all females and brand any male who thinks stories should be validated as a supporter of rapists.

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.

If you deem that a worthy cause or something worth supporting, you might as well start with now and call me a supporter of rapists.

Wibbs · 17-07-2018 11:32AM

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Unless you think all men are rapists and scumbags?

You seem to believe many, if not most Men™ are on the same side and potential rapists or apologists for them, particularly Irish men, "foreign" men are apparently more respectful. Which is a complete bloody nonsense of course. You claim every single woman you know has been raped and unless the minority of actual rapists gets around... More bloody nonsense.

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!

From what I've read of the men's rights types rape as a subject at all is well down the list. It seems to be about father's rights, fewer social supports for men, inequality in partner violence and the like.

As for Men™ not believing Women™? As I noted before on the matter: In studies of rape cases brought to trial the chances of a successful conviction increase with the number of men on a jury and decrease with the number of women. In Ireland a UCD study into it found that over the last twenty years where a jury had majority women not a single case ended with a conviction. Consider that. Not one. Whereas with male majority juries the conviction rate was a quarter, where it was more 50/50 men/women split the conviction rate dropped again(11% IIRC). Kinda goes against your narrow worldview were men don't believe women. It seems more women are suspicious of women's testimony than men are and for any rape victim finding a jury majority male is more likely to see justice done. No doubt in your headspace that's somehow the "patriarchy" and men's fault too.

seamus · 17-07-2018 11:41AM

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.

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.

martingriff · 17-07-2018 11:42AM

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.

I just brought it up in relation to a comment most women can't be sleazy.

Just because you do not create a toxic environment about men. It is done by the way you speak and actions.

givyjoe · 17-07-2018 11:47AM

DONTMATTER wrote: »

People here have questioned women's stories, they're believing some random scumbags instead.

You wish I legged it!

Safe to safe to say we all do, if not most. Mostly because your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent ramblings.

The random scumbags are unidentified in most of metoo. We don't even have their side of a story, so we don't really have an opportunity to believe said random 'scumbags'. I'm specifically referring to the unnamed randomers, allegedly guilty of harassment FYI.

Rory28 · 17-07-2018 11:49AM

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.

I'd agree with this. DONTMATTER is a terrible representation of the #metoo movement.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 17-07-2018 11:50AM

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.

Please don't speak as to what my motivations are.

Can you define what the #metoo cause means?

You told another poster that if they did not consider it their cause, then that poster did not think it was a valid cause.

Additionally, I never held DONTMATTER up as a representative for #metoo, because clearly they're incoherent.

seamus · 17-07-2018 12:14PM

Alessia Spicy Simpleton wrote: »

Can you define what the #metoo cause means?

The core of the cause is/was to demonstrate the prevalence of sexual assault and sexual harassment in society, mostly in the workplace, but also in the more general sense.
The word "too", has two effects;

1. It illustrates that it's not something that occurs in tiny pockets or in freak circumstances, but that it's widespread. Thus, people like you and I who are completely unaware of it, might take notice when the people in our lives are saying, "me too". Pretty easy to dismiss a load of hashtags of twitter, but when your wife, sister or mother (or indeed brother or father) are saying it, that tends hit home harder.

2. It serves as support for people who have been subject to this harassment; that speaking up about it won't be lost into a vacuum, that it's not a freak occurrence nobody will understand or ignore.

martingriff · 17-07-2018 12:29PM

DONTMATTER wrote: »

People here have questioned women's stories, they're believing some random scumbags instead.

You wish I legged it!

This is a simple question and please answer it simply do you believe ALL #metoo stories without question?

Now I know you will want me to answer the question also so here it is. No I don't believe all the stories without question. I believed the #metoo when it started and even a few now however I believe it has evolved into something worse. I fully am behind the original reason for #metoo for women to have a voice and get support. Rather then these stories been on social media they should go to the proper authorities in relation to them and you me and others should be supporting them to do this. As we live in a world of innocent until proven guilty.

py2006 · 17-07-2018 12:39PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovq8dEpCAYE

17-07-2018 01:10PM

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?

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?

LLMMLL · 17-07-2018 01:33PM

[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.

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.

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.

I have one point on this and one point only. Any seeming lack of support for men recounting experiences of women’s harassment is because it’s solely raised as a criticism of metoo. It’s aim is not to change women’s behaviour towards men (as in harrassment) but is used in an attempt to silence women criticising their own harrassment by men.

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. The one piece of advice I would give remains the same. Don’t do it to silence women on their own harrassment.

Rory28 · 17-07-2018 01:37PM

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.

I certainly would. Who would turn down Superman? She is obviously up to something nefarious.

LLMMLL · 17-07-2018 01:39PM

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.

Right and there are crazies who think sex is a mans right and he should be free to take it at will. We generally ignore the crazies. If you’re trying to characterise metoo as being mostly women complaining about someone looking at them for more than 5 seconds then I’m afraid that’s not going to work.

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..

I must have missed where GH was accused of sexual harrassment.

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

There’s no indication that his career has been ruined. Master of None season 3 has not been cancelled.

Mokuba · 17-07-2018 01:43PM

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.

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.

LLMMLL · 17-07-2018 01:46PM

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.

I was simply highlighting the absurdity of the posters claim. He takes about HC having to be careful of being perceived as a rapist when all HC talked about was flirting and pursual. It was a ridiculous scaremongering link he was making. “Oh the nasty feminists are going to make flirting illegal” type stuff.

LLMMLL · 17-07-2018 01:53PM

Alessia Spicy Simpleton wrote: »

Aziz Anzari?
George Hook?
Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding?

Scarlett Johannson: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-44829766

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.

seamus · 17-07-2018 01:55PM

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.

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.

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.

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".

17-07-2018 02:06PM

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.

LLMMLL · 17-07-2018 02:08PM

[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?

Not really. Take HCs comments for instance. He seems to be saying that previously you would keep going after an initial no whereas now you can’t. I’ll leave it open whether he’s saying this is a bad thing a good thing or a neutral thing.

So he didn’t say you can’t approach a woman. He’s saying if he says no, nowadays you’re expected to withdraw.

In that case the woman has signalled her interest “in real terms”. She’s signalled that she has no interest.

The guys on this thread trying to portray modern dating as impossibly complex just seem to be unable to accept basic signals like NO.

LLMMLL · 17-07-2018 02:09PM

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.

So a significant number of women are posting about men approaching them in bars and withdrawing politely after being rebuffed?

Examples please.

17-07-2018 02:13PM

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.

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?

I do wonder about this General consensus though.... how is that actually determined? Oh, you'll probably say it should be obvious... but isn't just the people with the loudest and most persistent voices? And it's also subject to change depending on the mood/attitude of the people involved... (since men aren't going to be involved in that decision, who tells the men when it's changed?)

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.

Ok. No problem. (I mentioned the deflection since you suggested there was more to it than your previous followup answer)

7aubzxk43m2sni · 17-07-2018 02:28PM

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.

Who mentioned rape or sexual harassment? The question was

"Have we seen any celebrities find themselves in any real trouble; legally, personally or professionally; after a trial by social media?"

Which, clearly, we have.

seamus · 17-07-2018 02:29PM

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?

You know, as someone who has ever invited people to an event on Facebook will tell you - online support is no support at all.

I don't disagree with you; in such a scenario there are lots of people who will blindly like and retweet stuff without considering its veracity.

But in terms of actual support? People who will talk to her and console her and make a big deal out of it? Family and friends, at most.

One poster here keeps bringing up Aziz Ansari, and he's even an extreme example of just a weird date. It's actually a perfect example of how easily online support dissolves away when it turns out that nothing wrong actually happened. Once that woman's story gained any traction online, the holes appeared and most people saw it for what it was. By the time it got to larger media, it had already turned into a discussion about what is actually appropriate to accuse people of rather than being an allegation of Ansari.

Likewise the allegation against George Takei turned out to be a nothingburger.

The support initially can be high, but it's incredibly fickle and disappears when the story turns out to be vapour.

17-07-2018 02:38PM

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.

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?

Women will have to adapt their approach, like men are having to.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Whereas I wonder at the logic that says that consent is given in a noticeable manner in most situations, and that body language is a perfectly acceptable form of communication. Body language is notoriously inaccurate due to differences in cultural perceptions and depending on the environment they're in.

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".

Sure you do. Why? Because we're talking about offenses which are increasingly becoming more serious as time goes by. In spite of what Dontmatter suggests, this society of ours does not condone or tolerate rape, or other related offenses. Once labeled with such an accusation, your reputation is likely to be ruined, and that story will follow you wherever you go.

The reason why it's so important though is that consent can be withdrawn at any time. There's already been threads here on boards where the majority of female posters were outraged at the suggest that a woman wouldn't be able to remove consent before, during or after any intimate behavior. That's why consent is such an issue. Any gray area regarding consent will lead to more men being brought up on charges.

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".

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.

professore · 17-07-2018 02:59PM

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.

It's purposefully vague. All this stuff about you should know when a woman is not interested is a load of nonsense. Unless we get to the stage where you go up to a woman, say "want to ****?" and then it's a yes or a no. This will no doubt suit some men perfectly. However some of us like a bit of flirting and banter and talking an initally disinterested woman around. So many successful marriages started like that in the past with the woman initially rejecting the man. HC is making the argument that this won't happen anymore.

I see men dividing into two groups : one group that are happy with going and having sex with lots of women in this direct manner and the other group - perhaps the less social ones - who are disillusioned with women and steer clear of them altogether - since they know that's what any woman who they think about having a long term relationship has done in the past. Plus they will be the well educated ones with good jobs who have something to lose from a false accusation. I am surprised no-one has made a film about the logical conclusion of this, it would make a great film.

Women who actually want some romance and flirting will have to decide between "want sum fuk" and a house full of cats.

seamus · 17-07-2018 03:11PM

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?

Right, so you're not really getting my point there; it being that we often don't require explicit communication to know the intent of another party. We can interact during our everyday life without having to spell it out, and interacting with the opposite sex is no different. A man chatting up a woman is not going to end up in court on a whim.

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.

Yeah, that's complete rubbish. Society has simply started moving towards properly recognising that one person cannot be held responsible for the actions of another. A woman cannot be be held responsible for the actions of the rapist who rapes her. That shouldn't be amazing stuff, but it is. "What about personal responsibility?!".

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).

What part of "my logic" says that nobody can approach anyone else? Is opening a conversation with "Hi", too daunting a task? Surely if he's such a "nice guy", then he'll be capable of introducing himself and then walking away if rebuked.

The reason why it's so important though is that consent can be withdrawn at any time.

Right, exactly the same as any other consensual interaction. This is not new or counter-intuitive.

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

FYP.

An increase in cases or reports does not mean an increase in incidents. In fact, incidents can be decreasing while reports and convictions increase.

Henry Cavill forced to apologize for #metoo comments

Comments