I take it you don't believe in Catholic standards of modesty?

She wasn't wearing an old-fashioned dress, she was at a mixed pool.

It's pretty cut and dry.  What would the saints say about the way she was dressed?

Fashions change.  Not always for the better, certainly, but virtue does not require us to look like 15th century matrons.  

The Cure of Ars, whom I love and invoke every day for my son, thought parish dances were immoral.  That doesn't mean we have to.  

Quote from: Tiffany

A slap which will do nothing to a man, is OK, but a punch is not? This is a STRANGER touching private areas and a woman is only supposed to slap him?

This was in the context of brass knuckles.

A punch won't do anything anyway unless the woman is large.

I really have to laugh at the idea of these women's self defense classes.

About the only thing a woman can do is gouge a man's eyes for go for the secrets.  

A very highly trained woman might be able to kick hard.  That won't do any good to a man who's already got hold of her.

If a woman tried to kick me I could catch her foot and start dragging her.

Ha!

Try that on a woman with military training.  

Quote from: Guest

I'm talking about the poster in this thread calling me vile for saying her son obviously wasn't mortally affronted if he tutors the girl who grabbed him.

It's obvious that momofmany (or whoever it was) didn't think it's a big deal what that girl did (at least in terms of injury to the boy), but she gets to call me vile because I say so.

However, being grabbed by a lifeguard while she was in her swimsuit has apparently haunted her for years.

I wonder how often women feel shame over their own reactions?

Men can't even complain about these things for fear of being falsely accused.  Not that they want to see women punished.  Men can a lose a lot from aggressive women who feel scorned.

Consider the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife.

Men and women should both be polite and courteous. Can we agree on that?

Apparently we can't.

YOU are engaging in feminism here, by equating the sexes.

19th Century sentimentality about women is the well-spring of feminism.

All the phony pretenses about wiping away special privileges for women have gone nowhere.  Feminism has always been about women's being treated not as equals, but as superiors.
 
You don't have people today making excuses for women who have abortions without the old 19th Century "chivalry" (that has nothing to do with knightly honor) that excuses women of every evil they do.

Should a woman really think she has the right to take away a man's bodily integrity - to attempt to maim or kill him if he does something stupid that is not life-threatening and not equivalent to rape?

For the vile sort of "chivalrous" people who think like those who sent millions of men to die in WWI, while feminists were handing out white feathers to those who didn't want fight for the Freemasons war on the monarchies, it's not a problem.  Feminists even claim that women are the main victims of war.

I would never try to seriously hurt a woman who fondled me.  And I wouldn't be justified.  Now, apparently to you, that's because the right to be free from molestation from women doesn't apply to men.  Only to women.  And not only is it a right, it's a pretext to engage in atrocious violence.

Women had a higher survival rate than children on the Titanic.

anesi . com / titanic . htm

You see, this idea that men and women aren't equal is the essence of feminism.  That's why they let women kill.  That's why abortion is the center-piece of feminism.

That's why women think a man who commits a minor crime of grabbing a woman's body deserves severe injury and even death, but they would demand a man who punished a woman in a similar way be locked up if a woman touched him.

This was never about life and death assaults, rape or kidnapping.  That's a completely separate issue.

Feminism is not about equality.

Catholicism is about equality.  Traditional marriage is about complementary equality.  

Feminism is about punishing the weak, in the womb or in the home of the working class man, to rob him of his dignity.

Causing horrible injury or death over slights of honor is wrong.  And it's more a slight to honor than a serious injury simply to deal with a grope.

Now, resisting?  Sure.  Resisting within reason.  If the perpetrator escalates significantly, it's a different situation.  We're talking about a prankster.

Women need to avoid such situations when they can.

A strange man groping a woman's private areas on public transportation is a prank? This isn't a man she knows who just acted inappropriately and she is crying perv. Touching a woman's private areas is not something just "stupid" it's done for s**** excitement. Again why are they picking a woman trapped on a bus, instead of the police woman guarding the bus station? It's planned like that because they know she can do nothing and they can have their perverted time.

You make it like it's little boys putting garlic salt in their mom's coffee.

This is a complete stranger, and she is trapped. People are raped, abducted, murdered, and beat to where they end up in an ICU in broad daylight. This day and age you will have people taking videos with their phone instead of stopping it.



 

it's done for s**** excitement.

So are impure looks.  That hardly means a woman is entitled to shoot a fellow, is it?

Serlously Tiffany, there is no sense of proportion in what you're talking about.

There are obviously degrees of severity.  What is needed is proportional response.

What we see here is how feminist women, in argument, believe they have the right to retaliate with lies, slander, smears.  It is really the same vicious principle at work.  They are to have impunity to cause injury.