Author Topic: Women get harassed walking down streets of NY (Read 2236 times)

Matthew · « **on:** October 31, 2014, 08:36:25 AM »

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/b1XGPvbWn0A[/youtube]

I wouldn't put the guys nicely saying "Good evening" in the category of "harassers" -- they're just being polite. Sure, they're hoping it will turn into a friendship and hopefully more, but you can't outlaw saying "good evening" to an attractive woman.

Many of the guys, however, were clearly harassing her. They were practically treating her like a hooker.

In the eternal discussions about "Women in Pants", don't some women say, "I'll get harassed if I wear a long skirt!" Well, apparently wearing a tight shirt and pants will do NOTHING for your cause.

Ironically, this woman thought she was being neutral by what she wore. No, it's very tight clothing. Pants are NOT the most modest thing you can put on, sorry.

BTNYC · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2014, 08:54:51 AM »

I'm sick to death of hearing about this video. It's a feminist PR stunt - essentially an adjunct to all the "slut pride" / anti "slut shaming" agitprop activism and sloganeering that's been going on for the better (or rather worse) part of a decade - especially in New York.

It's all part of the campaign of the Third Wave Feminists to wield lust as a cudgel over men; a ridiculous expectation that a woman should be able to go about dressed like a whore and suffer absolutely no consequences whatsoever - not even the leers and catcalls of men raised on the legal, widely available pornography that the Feminists also champion in their neverending quest to subvert the natural order and gain power over men.

The woman in this video was dressed whorish by any decent standards of modesty, if not by modern secular standards. She dressed to inflame men's passions and men's passions were inflamed - don't stop the presses. If you want your feminism, then don't expect chivalry. If you want chivalry, then you're going to have to jettison feminism. You can't have it both ways.

Tiffany · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2014, 08:55:55 AM »

That is pretty much big city culture no matter what she is wearing.
I don't agree with the "I'm a girl and I wear modest clothes so young men will have pure thoughts" type of NO "modesty" teaching, a young beautiful woman could wear a paper bag and men will notice her and many will hit on her.

Good evening is good evening but they probably wouldn't say it of the girl's father or grandmother were there instead of her.

Frances · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2014, 09:24:11 AM »

:dancing-banana:
It's time to hear from a female long-time New Yorker! I'm a Traditional Catholic, average looks, age 54. I wear modest skirts or dresses, don't even own pants. These sorts of comments still happen to me, although nowhere near as much, and not "damn." There are a few males out there who will catcall any female, even if, as Tiffany says, she has a bag over her head! It's because of the anonynimity offered by the city.
That being said, this woman is dressed slutty and is therefore asking for crude comments. By present NYC standards, she's actually on the conservative side!

glaston · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2014, 09:47:21 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

I'm sick to death of hearing about this video. It's a feminist PR stunt - essentially an adjunct to all the "slut pride" / anti "slut shaming" agitprop activism and sloganeering that's been going on for the better (or rather worse) part of a decade - especially in New York.

It's all part of the campaign of the Third Wave Feminists to wield lust as a cudgel over men; a ridiculous expectation that a woman should be able to go about dressed like a whore and suffer absolutely no consequences whatsoever - not even the leers and catcalls of men raised on the legal, widely available pornography that the Feminists also champion in their neverending quest to subvert the natural order and gain power over men.

The woman in this video was dressed whorish by any decent standards of modesty, if not by modern secular standards. She dressed to inflame men's passions and men's passions were inflamed - don't stop the presses. If you want your feminism, then don't expect chivalry. If you want chivalry, then you're going to have to jettison feminism. You can't have it both ways.

It's our zionist 'Overlords' (recognise WW2 word?) recreating the Amazonian Tribe.

They occupied/were 'warring neighbours' of αѕнкenαzι Khazars/Khazaria

Think Jolie, Jєω + promoted as ulti_mate Amazonian Athelete in "Tomb Raider" series of Films etc
(Gymnasium stems from the Greeks - look it up. Hitler got all of Germany population doing fanatical training/ mass Gym exercises - before unleashing WW2)

Like the Amazonians - jolie cut her tits off under pretext of a non-illness (she's been brainwashed),
ditto the Amazonian Horse Archer cut off one of their tits so they could fire arrows whilst fighting on horseback!

They were an uber feminist culture of females only (raided other tribes to find a mate, who was then sold off as a slave or killed)

Cantarella · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2014, 11:45:58 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

I'm sick to death of hearing about this video. It's a feminist PR stunt - essentially an adjunct to all the "slut pride" / anti "slut shaming" agitprop activism and sloganeering that's been going on for the better (or rather worse) part of a decade - especially in New York.

It's all part of the campaign of the Third Wave Feminists to wield lust as a cudgel over men; a ridiculous expectation that a woman should be able to go about dressed like a whore and suffer absolutely no consequences whatsoever - not even the leers and catcalls of men raised on the legal, widely available pornography that the Feminists also champion in their neverending quest to subvert the natural order and gain power over men.

The woman in this video was dressed whorish by any decent standards of modesty, if not by modern secular standards. She dressed to inflame men's passions and men's passions were inflamed - don't stop the presses. If you want your feminism, then don't expect chivalry. If you want chivalry, then you're going to have to jettison feminism. You can't have it both ways.

Well said, BTNYC!

Especially this is very true:

If you want your feminism, then don't expect chivalry. If you want chivalry, then you're going to have to jettison feminism. You can't have it both ways.

Clearly tight shirts and pants do not demand much respect, either. Sadly, this type of feminist campaign has eradicated the old fashion gentleman - like compliments also. Everything nowadays becomes "harassment" even proper compliments or flattering attitudes. It is a double standard.

poche · « **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2014, 04:03:25 AM »

wouldn't put the guys nicely saying "Good evening" in the category of "harassers" -- they're just being polite. Sure, they're hoping it will turn into a friendship and hopefully more, but you can't outlaw saying "good evening" to an attractive woman.

In the Old South in the black community it is considered rude to no speak to someone as they pass by.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2014, 05:54:10 AM »

Quote from: poche

In the Old South in the black community it is considered rude to no speak to someone as they pass by.

Yes well in the black community, it is also common to rape women as well as a form of racial hatred. :wink:

poche · « **Reply #8 on:** November 04, 2014, 12:48:34 AM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: poche
In the Old South in the black community it is considered rude to no speak to someone as they pass by.

Yes well in the black community, it is also common to rape women as well as a form of racial hatred. :wink:

Rape is worse than fornication and gαy sex. It is never ok.

tdrev123 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 04, 2014, 01:11:08 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: poche
In the Old South in the black community it is considered rude to no speak to someone as they pass by.

Yes well in the black community, it is also common to rape women as well as a form of racial hatred. :wink:

Rape is worse than fornication and gαy sex. It is never ok.

He was saying that black culture is backwards and idiotic.

poche · « **Reply #10 on:** November 04, 2014, 01:13:14 AM »

Quote from: tdrev123

Quote from: poche
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: poche
In the Old South in the black community it is considered rude to no speak to someone as they pass by.

Yes well in the black community, it is also common to rape women as well as a form of racial hatred. :wink:

Rape is worse than fornication and gαy sex. It is never ok.

He was saying that black culture is backwards and idiotic.

Not everybody is backwards and idiotic.

tdrev123 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 04, 2014, 02:32:55 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: tdrev123
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: poche
In the Old South in the black community it is considered rude to no speak to someone as they pass by.

Yes well in the black community, it is also common to rape women as well as a form of racial hatred. :wink:

Rape is worse than fornication and gαy sex. It is never ok.

He was saying that black culture is backwards and idiotic.

Not everybody is backwards and idiotic.

Every person who prescribes to black culture is backwards and idiotic, they can be black or white or anything...Not every black is idiotic or backwards, but every one that prescribes to black culture is.

I didn't say everybody was backwards...

PereJoseph · « **Reply #12 on:** November 04, 2014, 03:52:35 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: poche
In the Old South in the black community it is considered rude to no speak to someone as they pass by.

Yes well in the black community, it is also common to rape women as well as a form of racial hatred. :wink:

Rape is worse than fornication and gαy sex. It is never ok.

I'm not so sure about that. I think sodomy is probably worse than rape. Many people nowadays believe in the incoherent concept of "marital rape," as well. The concept of rape is evolving. It used to mean to kidnap a woman and then take her into one's bed, whereas the term is now applied to what used to be known by the verb "to ravage." Even ten years ago, the popular and legal meaning of the word "rape" was basically "to ravage."

Now there seems to be an effort to change the meaning to "to seduce," and such people as publicly drunk women are said to be victims of rape, which is ridiculous. In the recent past, however, a publicly drunk woman was seen as signifying her availability, since no chaste woman would ever put herself in such a situation. Drunk people are often quite suggestible, and a single woman drunk in public is thus putting herself on display to would-be companions.

But that comes from a way of looking at the world wherein the normative standard of behaviour is that women are not permitted to become drunk in public, since it is a disgrace to them and their families. In the contemporary culture of Liberalism, everything that was accepted as a basic feature of the order of the universe for four millennia is now treated as the peculiar thought of an obscure and burdensome ideology. The rules and laws are now all upside-down.

clare · « **Reply #13 on:** November 04, 2014, 06:17:47 AM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: poche
...
Rape is worse than fornication and gαy sex. It is never ok.

I'm not so sure about that. I think sodomy is probably worse than rape. ....

Here is an article about St Thomas Aquinas's taxonomy of sins.

Quote

...
The most serious sɛҳuąƖ sins (leaving out circuмstances such as violence, which compound the sinfulness) are sins contra naturam, sins contrary to human nature, and thus contrary to God the author of human nature.

The most obviously unnatural sin is “bestiality,” i.e., sɛҳuąƖ intercourse with animals – a sin which offers an affront to the human species. Next in seriousness is sodomy, which is an affront to the natural relationship between male and female.

In third place are unnatural coital relationships between men and women – for example, anal intercourse, coitus interruptus, or other contraceptive measures – all of which are sinful because they do not observe “the right manner of copulation.” In his Summa contra gentiles, Aquinas compares such relationships to homicide: “After the sin of homicide whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is precluded.” By taking measures to prevent a human life from emerging naturally, such non-procreative sex constitutes an action against the potential human soul that might result.

The least serious “unnatural” sɛҳuąƖ sin is masturbation, in which pleasure is intentionally sought in isolation from natural social relationships. Aquinas is careful to distinguish this from “nocturnal pollution” or other unintentional emission of semen, which is not sinful. In our era, we would include pornography, as a means to excite prurient sɛҳuąƖity, as connected with this sin.

Incest, which is borderline “natural,” if it involves male-female intercourse, is nevertheless a grievous sin since it flouts the natural relationships proper to people connected by consanguinity or affinity.

As regards normal male-female relationships, the most serious sin is of course rape, in which sɛҳuąƖ sinfulness is compounded with a serious sin of injustice, forced intercourse with someone who is unwilling.

Next in seriousness is sacrilege, for example, intercourse with a nun or priest who has taken a vow of chastity. Because of the vow, this sin involves a direct offense to God; and if it is accompanied by rape, the seriousness is compounded.

Less serious is adultery, which is consensual, but is combined with the sin of injustice, since at least one of the parties is joined lawfully to another in marriage.

Finally, Aquinas makes a distinction between two of the least serious sɛҳuąƖ sins – “seduction” and “fornication.” In making this distinction he is in part taking into account the customs in his era, in which (as also in our own time) a father at a wedding will “give away” the bride. The legal code then favored marriage, on condition of parental consent and consent of the bride; in the absence of such consent, civil penalties for seduction were prescribed.

Fornication, i.e. what we call “consensual sex” is defined by Aquinas as intercourse with a woman who is not a virgin, and in which no external aggravating circuмstances are relevant – e.g., the use of force, or the use of contraceptives. This act is sinful because it militates against the social welfare of possible progeny who might result – leading to the possibility of children without a father to aid them with moral and intellectual guidance into adulthood.
...

tdrev123 · « **Reply #14 on:** November 05, 2014, 02:54:19 AM »

I don't think there is a need to figure out which sin is worst, the order of severity, etc. It is good to understand why some sins are more grave then others, but I think that talking and comparing one sin to another can lead to rationalization of committing a sin - when someone is about to commit masturbation and he thinks, 'oh it is the least of all the sɛҳuąƖ sins...' - - This is one of the downfalls of western society, the rationalization of sin - and I think that when we talk about the order of sins it is the first step in this rationalization - note: I am not saying that the taxonomy of sins is rationalization AT ALL, but It does lead people to rationalize, especially in this modern world.

I find that the best way for me is to view any sin to be equal to murder. Before I became a traditional Catholic, I would rationalize sins by using things like the taxonomy of sins, or rationalizing that the sin is just venial. So for me and I think a lot of other people, we should just view any sin as the worst sin.