#MeToo has caught on, good thing or bad thing ?

Pac1Man

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

He got down to the crowd, he's a celebrity, Hands are everywhere. Not like anyone pulled his knob out and wanked him off.

A load of oul bollocks

That's what the fan said.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

He got down to the crowd, he's a celebrity, Hands are everywhere. Not like anyone pulled his knob out and wanked him off.

A load of oul bollocks

Looking at the video it seems like a deliberate, very intimate grope, and he pushes the person's hand off and moves away.

Just because someone's in public, in arms reach and you like the look of them doesn't mean you get to grab their bits. "He's a celebrity" isn't any better of an excuse than "she was wearing a short skirt"

0ph0rce0

Greta Uneven Termite wrote: »

Looking at the video it seems like a deliberate, very intimate grope, and he pushes the person's hand off and moves away.

Just because someone's in public, in arms reach and you like the look of them doesn't mean you get to grab their bits. "He's a celebrity" isn't any better of an excuse than "she was wearing a short skirt"

The chap got down on his knees crotch first to peoples heads into a crowd of fan girls, hands went everywhere. I highly doubt anyone girl was thinking GRAB HIS DICK in that moment. Just looking for a touch of Harry.

A loAd of bollocks I said.

server down

seamus wrote: »

Yes. That's pretty much it. Opportunities to meet strangers, that is. Because, believe it or not, most people don't really want strangers talking to them in public, never mind chatting them up. How many couples have a story that starts with, "Well, I was going through airport security and he asked me for my number, and the rest is history". There's one of them for every 1,000 stories that start with, "We met in school/college/work/through friends".

By a massive margin, people still "meet people" through social activities which build familiarity rather than assume sexual tension - socialising with friends, working, shared hobbies, school/college/training courses.

Where the two people were previously strangers, a bar or other "sexualised" social setting is the preferred venue by a country mile, because, again, people just want to go about their ordinary day without being chatted up or having to chat up.

Online and dating apps are a huge source now because they remove the guesswork. The only people involved are those who want to be. As much as people complain about them being sausagefests, they've massively improved the hit ratio for the majority of men. The guy who manages to land one "date" a month, even if it's just a short-lived drink with a woman, is probably doing 10-20 times better than he would have 20 twenty years ago trying to chat up random women at the bus stop.

Actually not that many people meet their spouse in colllege and very few people I know are married to their high school sweet heart. That leaves work - which could be male or female dominated and “through friends” which can be a lottery.

I met a gf in an airport. We were both delayed.

professore

seamus wrote: »

Men don't fight for it.

Male office fashion is also far more restrained than women's. There are hundreds of variants of women's styles, and a wide range of colours.

Men's by comparison are pretty much "flat". With the exception of wearing a shirt which may be a little bit bright, it's a darkish suit with a plain shirt and a matching tie.

A man who wanted to, could easily take the cue from women and go to work in a bright white or mustard suit with a patterned shirt. It's within any dress code. This would be perfectly normal for a woman to do, but men choose not to. Fear of rocking the boat, or whatever.

And yes, one could argue social pressure makes men not wear a flamboyant suit. But back in the 70's, the only acceptable office wear for women was a skirt and heels. It's only by pushing against social pressure that you can invoke change. Women have a wider variety of what's acceptable to wear, because women pushed back and constantly pushed the boundaries.

Men haven't.

So it's fine because men don't "fight" for it. Hmmmm. So men are not the violent macho types and women are not the shrinking helpless violets you would have us believe?

hatrickpatrick

professore wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/i-was-sexually-harassed-says-rt-weather-presenter-joanna-donnelly-36249564.html

This kind of thing is what pisses people off. I'm not referring to the anonymous letter, I'm referring to the "sexual harrassment" of some guy asking her out a few times and she saying no to him. Nothing more. Who has this not happened to, male or female, someone you don't fancy chasing you?

Calls into question the credibility of her whole narrative. Then a mention of her book at the end. Makes a mockery of genuine cases.

In my view, this article describes *EXACTLY* what should be meant by sexual harassment.

"The problem was with this one particular person who just wouldn't take no for an answer. They were making things really uncomfortable, constantly asking me out. It wasn't physically dangerous but it was harassment. He would ask me out and I would say 'no' and then he would ask me out again and I would say 'No, I'm not interested' and he would say 'well you're leading me on' and that I had smiled at him in a particular way."

In what universe is this not harassment? If someone tells you they're not interested, back the f*ck off. Failing or refusing to do so is indeed harassment, and on top of that it's just being an unimaginably pathetic human being.

professore

seamus wrote: »

Yes. That's pretty much it. Opportunities to meet strangers, that is. Because, believe it or not, most people don't really want strangers talking to them in public, never mind chatting them up. How many couples have a story that starts with, "Well, I was going through airport security and he asked me for my number, and the rest is history". There's one of them for every 1,000 stories that start with, "We met in school/college/work/through friends".

By a massive margin, people still "meet people" through social activities which build familiarity rather than assume sexual tension - socialising with friends, working, shared hobbies, school/college/training courses.

Where the two people were previously strangers, a bar or other "sexualised" social setting is the preferred venue by a country mile, because, again, people just want to go about their ordinary day without being chatted up or having to chat up.

Online and dating apps are a huge source now because they remove the guesswork. The only people involved are those who want to be. As much as people complain about them being sausagefests, they've massively improved the hit ratio for the majority of men. The guy who manages to land one "date" a month, even if it's just a short-lived drink with a woman, is probably doing 10-20 times better than he would have 20 twenty years ago trying to chat up random women at the bus stop.

Are people really being hit on all the time? Really? Is it that much of a thing? I'm friends with some truly beautiful women and outside of bars they are not being hit on 24/7.

professore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my view, this article describes *EXACTLY* what should be meant by sexual harassment.



In what universe is this not harassment? If someone tells you they're not interested, back the f*ck off. Failing or refusing to do so is indeed harassment, and on top of that it's just being an unimaginably pathetic human being.

Totally depends on the context. If she was smiling suggestively at him and bantering back and forth it might not be. In any event it doesn't merit a #MeToo Harvey Weinstein level.

hatrickpatrick

Greta Uneven Termite wrote: »

I think it's important to listen to the reasonable male voices on this thread too, it can be easy to get exasperated and distracted by the others.

This thread is no more representative of men, IME, than random nutters on Twitter are representative of the people posting #MeToo.

Boards in general would have you convinced there's a literal gender war going on out there. With grenades and stuf.

Boards has a very selective majority view on some subjects which really doesn't tally with the average Irish person. If you read the politics forums you'll become convinced that Irish society is full of right wing zealots and far left zealots, which if it translated into real life would essentially mean that FG and the PBP/AAA would dominate our Dail while every other party would be small enough to fit into the "others" category.

On the gender war aspect, I do think that there's a serious problem in mainstream society at the moment, which is fuelling the genuine popularity of things like Brexit and Trump and other conservative agendas, which is essentially the fact that straight, white men are now the only/i] demographic not regarded as a "protected class", which means that people in the media feel free to publicly mock, generalise and attack this demographic in a way which they acknowledge would be totally unacceptable against any other demographic (but use the "privilege" argument to get around their own double standard) - to be honest, it can hardly be surprising that people who are being forced to read and hear that they are everything that is wrong with society on a daily basis whenever they open a newspaper might be starting to become dangerously disillusioned by that. Hence, among other reasons, the growth of the silent, time-biding alt-right which is dismissed as a joke and nothing for us to worry about - until it suddenly and unexpectedly makes its views known at election time.

hatrickpatrick

professore wrote: »

Totally depends on the context. If she was smiling suggestively at him and bantering back and forth it might not be. In any event it doesn't merit a #MeToo Harvey Weinstein level.

She told him she wasn't interested, he continued to bother her. From reading that article, over a long period of time. He then became bitter and hostile towards her when she continued to reject him.

How is this not harassment? This is exactly the kind of sh!te that could ruin somebody's day, particularly if they were already stressed out about other stuff, which most of us are these days.

professore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

She told him she wasn't interested, he continued to bother her. From reading that article, over a long period of time. He then became bitter and hostile towards her when she continued to reject him.

How is this not harassment? This is exactly the kind of sh!te that could ruin somebody's day, particularly if they were already stressed out about other stuff, which most of us are these days.

I'm sorry but this kind of thing happens to people. Often it can be socially awkward men (or women) who have difficulty reading subtle social cues that do it. If this happens to you it doesn't compare to being sexually assaulted or raped. These days any man who doesn't know this is not acceptable must be living under a rock.

This is not to say it's a pleasant experience or is in any way right, but I would suggest if you can't deal with some guy asking you out repeatedly you have very poor social skills. Plus you have the weight of HR on your side.

Jumping on the #MeToo hashtag to promote a book which is in the pipeline "when I write my book" with this is a bit rich.

4068ac1elhodqr

Poor Harold Styles has been taken advantage of now at a benefit concert in California.
#prayforharry #respectharry #badstyle #wrongdirection #harrytoo

http://www.thejournal.ie/harry-styles-groped-3659994-Oct2017/

hatrickpatrick

seamus wrote: »

A woman standing at a bus stop, or in line at Tesco, or in work, or going through airport security, or any other of a million other places that are mundane daily things, does probably not have "maybe meet a nice guy" top of their agenda for that day. So a guy coming up and talking to her is going to get a more guarded response by default. "Hi, how are you?" will never be sexual harassment, but she will think - just like you would - "Ugh, what do you want? I'm in no mood for making smalltalk, just go away. Please".

This, to me, is exactly where this conversation jumps the shark. You are assuming that all women are introverted, and by saying "just like you should" you are also implying that all men should also be introverted. I'm about the most extroverted person you could meet and I'm almost always delighted if a stranger starts talking to me in a queue or in a bus stop, - not just because they might be an attractive woman who I might (and frequently have) end up going out with (first time I ever had a one night stand with a woman was after meeting her in a supermarket queue, where she opened by accusing me of skipping her ) but also just because waiting for the bus or train is boring and constantly refreshing social media gets old, especially if your battery is low and you have a 20 minute wait for the feckin' thing.

So I, as an individual, would almost never say "I'm in no mood for making smalltalk", I love it and it makes the time fly by when it would otherwise be agonisingly boring. Applying this "everybody is probably introverted" standard, which is what some of the people pushing very restrictive standards of when its ok to chat somebody up seem to want - would certainly turn my experience of the world into a very lonely and boring one. Hell, I've made actual genuine friends from people who regularly get the same Nitelink I do home from town on Saturday nights, and there are people I know for no other reason than that they use the same gym I do that I would now not infrequently text to see if they're around my area for a pint. You're implying in the bolded sentence that I should feel irritated when some randomer strikes up a conversation with me in a public place, but it's almost always quite the opposite for me, I love it and I love that aspect of living in Dublin.

So your whole argument fails, really. To you public spaces may not be spaces in which you're open to interacting with strangers, but that's very, very far from the case with everyone (and I think Ireland probably has a higher number of extroverts per square metre than other countries, at least that's what any tourists I know who've visited here tell me) so it would be insane to apply this "everyone you meet during your average day in town is probably an introvert" standard to the whole country just because some people are.

It would be far, far easier if we agreed that persisting to bother someone after they have actually told you that they're not interested in interacting with you was unacceptable. But trying to imply that when out in public, people should just be looking down at their phones and not communicating with those around them might make the world a happier place for you, but it would make it far less happy for me and the thousands of other people like me, some of whom I now hang out with on a regular basis for no reason other than that we happened to be waiting for the same bus at some time and we were both up for a chat.

seamus

professore wrote: »

So it's fine because men don't "fight" for it. Hmmmm. So men are not the violent macho types and women are not the shrinking helpless violets you would have us believe?

Wow, holy irrelevant tangents, Batman!

I didn't say it's "fine". I simply stated a matter of fact. If the limitations of the male dress code in the office is something that gets you riled up, then go do something about it instead of complaining about women apparently having it better.

__..__

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

He got down to the crowd, he's a celebrity, Hands are everywhere. Not like anyone pulled his knob out and wanked him off.

A load of oul bollocks

Looks to me like he got down and put his crotch into a sea of hands, probably right in front of faces too.

retro:electro

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

She told him she wasn't interested, he continued to bother her. From reading that article, over a long period of time. He then became bitter and hostile towards her when she continued to reject him.

How is this not harassment? This is exactly the kind of sh!te that could ruin somebody's day, particularly if they were already stressed out about other stuff, which most of us are these days.

I would agree that Joanna's experience constitutes harassment. For people who are struggling to see it as such- replace "constantly asking me out" with "constantly calling me", "constantly calling me a name"- the deciphering word is "constant".

Just because he was "only asking her out" doesn't detract from the level of discomfort and intimidation he was making her feel. Once you have told someone to stop doing something, and they continue to do it- that is harassment. Once off experiences of uncomfortable encounters are not. Persistent, heedless and unrelenting patterns of unwarranted behaviour of any kind is harassment.

I thought her overall argument of complain and report was very constructive.

seamus

professore wrote: »

Are people really being hit on all the time? Really? Is it that much of a thing? I'm friends with some truly beautiful women and outside of bars they are not being hit on 24/7.

Is this something you talk to them about a lot? Or are you just assuming that because it doesn't happen when you're there, that it's not happening at all?

server down wrote: »

Actually not that many people meet their spouse in colllege and very few people I know are married to their high school sweet heart. That leaves work - which could be male or female dominated and “through friends” which can be a lottery.

I met a gf in an airport. We were both delayed.

You're arguing with statistics there. Just because your experience doesn't match up, doesn't make your experience reality.

Fact is that random encounters are tiny minority. So much so that just going up and approaching people in public is very unlikely to yield anything unless you take the scattergun approach.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This, to me, is exactly where this conversation jumps the shark. You are assuming that all women are introverted, and by saying "just like you should" you are also implying that all men should also be introverted.

I said "would", not "should".

And since the rest of your post is based on that mistake, you've wasted a lot of energy, I fear. If you re-read it you'll find that nothing in my post disagrees with yours.

hatrickpatrick

seamus wrote: »

I said "would", not "should".

And since the rest of your post is based on that mistake, you've wasted a lot of energy, I fear. If you re-read it you'll find that nothing in my post disagrees with yours.

Not really. You said:

A woman standing at a bus stop, or in line at Tesco, or in work, or going through airport security, or any other of a million other places that are mundane daily things, does probably not have "maybe meet a nice guy" top of their agenda for that day. So a guy coming up and talking to her is going to get a more guarded response by default.

Again, I don't agree with this. Certainly not in Ireland, anyway. Most people I know (bearing in mind obviously that extroverts tend to hang out with other extroverts so my perception is biased) are always on the lookout both for interesting people and sexy people, and this applies to men and women I hang out with. In fact, among some women I know, being approached in a mundane place by a sexy stranger is literally at the top of their list of turnons. So again, the perception of the world which you have described in your post does not match mine at all, and since I know I'm not alone in this and you obviously know you're not alone in it either, the logical conclusion to come to is that everyone is different. But we shouldn't all start treading on eggshells just because some people aren't interested in what is, for others, a way of life.

professore

seamus wrote: »

Fact is that random encounters are tiny minority. So much so that just going up and approaching people in public is very unlikely to yield anything unless you take the scattergun approach.

Let's see your peer reviewed statistics. Match.com probably.

professore

anna080 wrote: »

I would agree that Joanna's experience constitutes harassment. For people who are struggling to see it as such- replace "constantly asking me out" with "constantly calling me", "constantly calling me a name"- the deciphering word is "constant".

Just because he was "only asking her out" doesn't detract from the level of discomfort and intimidation he was making her feel. Once you have told someone to stop doing something, and they continue to do it- that is harassment. Once off experiences of uncomfortable encounters are not. Persistent, heedless and unrelenting patterns of unwarranted behaviour of any kind is harassment.

I thought her overall argument of complain and report was very constructive.

Ok, I re read the article and if she had to repeatedly highlight it then there was clearly a problem. I guess when I hear "sexual harassment" I think of groping, cat calling or worse. Repeatedly asking someone out doesn't seem like sexual harassment - it's harassment, sure, but it seems a stretch to call it sexual harassment.

seamus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But we shouldn't all start treading on eggshells just because some people aren't interested in what is, for others, a way of life.

And I never suggested that. As I said, it's all about context. electro-bitch explained it better than I did.
By all means, say Hi to someone in the supermarket. I never said otherwise. But pay heed to the cues that tell you someone is not interested in a conversation, and be aware that for the most part, you are going to get a different response to the same question depending on the venue and a million other factors, as EB says.

professore wrote: »

Let's see your peer reviewed statistics. Match.com probably.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10135.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10135/F1.large.jpg

Just one of many, it's the first that comes up in a search.

It's a fairly common theme and has been for most of human history.

Even in terms of one-night stands, it's basically the same. Bars, social events, online dating, etc., are all more successful than, "I walked up to them on the street".

0ph0rce0

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

I see Harry Styles was sexually assaulted

https://www.joe.ie/music/footage-emerged-fan-groping-harry-styles-performed-stage-604546

What a ****ing joke of a world we live in now.

Look at the comments on twitter. Madness

If you don't see that as completely inappropriate, there's a problem with your perception. Just because the guy is a performer doesn't mean he should accept mauling as an occupational hazard.

server down

seamus wrote: »

Is this something you talk to them about a lot? Or are you just assuming that because it doesn't happen when you're there, that it's not happening at all?
You're arguing with statistics there. Just because your experience doesn't match up, doesn't make your experience reality.

Fact is that random encounters are tiny minority. So much so that just going up and approaching people in public is very unlikely to yield anything unless you take the scattergun approach.

I said "would", not "should".

And since the rest of your post is based on that mistake, you've wasted a lot of energy, I fear. If you re-read it you'll find that nothing in my post disagrees with yours.

I’m not arguing any statistics. I was responding to your claim that people should meet at a bar only. You then moved on to other places where people meet but whenever people meet somebody has to ask the other person out. Of course this can be harassment if over done but it’s a necessary first step.

seamus

server down wrote: »

I was responding to your claim that people should meet at a bar only.

Ah, but I never said that. My implication was that if you plan on approaching strangers for romantic encounters, then you're better off sticking to bars and similar places because that's where you're most likely to get a positive response rather than a look of disgust.

And the statistic back that up.

LLMMLL

Floppybits wrote: »

In all seriousness though it seems Men can do nothing right, On the one hand we have women saying that they can't get man and on the other you have women, probably the same ones, saying men are not to look at me or talk to me or approach me anyway.  Yes there are men out there who believe they are god's gift and cannot understand why a woman can reject them, Why they are like that who knows? What can be done about, well I suppose there mates tell them to cop onto themselves and stop being an ars*ho*e? That might work, it may not. Ostracize them from society. 

Nah there are no women complaijing about being single and also demanding that no man ever ask them out.

Unfortunately some people can't tell the difference between approaching a random woman on the street who is on her way home from a **** day at work and approaching a friend of a friend at a party who you've been having a flirtatious conversation with.

There are lots of ways to approach women that I would view as creepy. A woman you have career power over. A woman working in the coffee shop you frequent. A woman you see on the street etc.

Now sure SOME women might react well to these situations of a guy is charming and attractive. That doesn't mean it's not a creepy thing to do and it's something we should all aspire to.

hatrickpatrick

LLMMLL wrote: »

Unfortunately some people can't tell the difference between approaching a random woman on the street who is on her way home from a **** day at work and approaching a friend of a friend at a party who you've been having a flirtatious conversation with.

There are lots of ways to approach women that I would view as creepy. A woman you have career power over. A woman working in the coffee shop you frequent. A woman you see on the street etc.

Now sure SOME women might react well to these situations of a guy is charming and attractive. That doesn't mean it's not a creepy thing to do and it's something we should all aspire to.

I would disagree with all of this, and I personally know several couples who would not be together if one of them hasn't acted in this "creepy" way you describe. Why should it be regarded as creepy unless it continues after a polite rejection?

neonsofa

Candie wrote: »

If you don't see that as completely inappropriate, there's a problem with your perception. Just because the guy is a performer doesn't mean he should accept mauling as an occupational hazard.

Earlier in the thread: "this happens to men too/what about men being groped/why are men not included in this campaign"

Now, when people are discussing a man being groped inappropriately: "load of bollocks/he knelt down that way/what a joke"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

suicide_circus

^^^^of course you didn't see it as creepy, you were in a position of power.

0ph0rce0

Candie wrote: »

If you don't see that as completely inappropriate, there's a problem with your perception. Just because the guy is a performer doesn't mean he should accept mauling as an occupational hazard.

I'm not saying he should I just don't see what happened here as sexual harassment.

An excited teenager looked to touch her idol or some ****e while he jumps down in front of the crowd. I really doubt anyone there before the gig was saying hmmmmm think I'll grab oul harry by the balls.

A bunch of girls touch him like what happens at pretty much any concert where a performer goes to the crowd. Someone put their hand up in the wrong place here and most likley by accident touched his balls if even as you see nothing in that video.

You think this, most likely an excited teenager should be arrested, charged, jailed and put on a sex offender list?

0ph0rce0

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

I'm not saying he should I just don't see what happened here as sexual harassment.

An excited teenager looked to touch her idol or some ****e while he jumps down in front of the crowd. I really doubt anyone there before the gig was saying hmmmmm think I'll grab oul harry by the balls.

A bunch of girls touch him like what happens at pretty much any concert where a performer goes to the crowd. Someone put their hand up in the wrong place here and most likley by accident touched his balls if even as you see nothing in that video.

You think this, most likely an excited teenager should be arrested, charged, jailed and put on a sex offender list?

If the genders were reversed - he’d defiantly be arrested etc

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^^of course you didn't see it as creepy, you were in a position of power.

In a way, she had more power. Power to refuse his interest. Most companies have contractual obligations requiring no dating by management staff. Also, the perception of sexual harassment in the workplace still is heavily towards protecting women from men. (especially in the US where they sue so quickly for any possible slight)

If she wasn't interested, she was in the position to refuse his advances, and if desired, put his career at risk. Her career would have been safe, without even needing to suggest any actual harassment.

suicide_circus

My post was a little tongue in cheek

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ipso

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^^of course you didn't see it as creepy, you were in a position of power.

Unconscious creepiness.

professore

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^^of course you didn't see it as creepy, you were in a position of power.

suicide circus, you sound like a right barrel of laughs.

take everything

It will be interesting to see how this stuff plays out.

This redefining of what's acceptable according to feeling.

This constant vilification of male sexual desire.

Isn't this why we have a legal system. Why aren't women hauling these offenders before the courts. Will mansplaining or manspreading eventually be prosecutable.

It doesn't seem so absurd in the current climate.

Is this in any way good for men. I'm not talking about male feminist/trying-to-curry-favour-with-women types. I'm talking about proper masculine men.

What are these guys doing in reaction to this. Is a backlash to bull**** from decent men long overdue.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

I still have FB "friends" that have the opaqueFrench Flag in their profile pic.

Transparent = totally see through, eg glass.

Translucent = partially see through.

Opaque = not see through at all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Common sense has gone out the window - we should really stop importing crap like this from America

professore

LIFE is uncomfortable. Try watching someone you love die in front of you. Now that's ****ing uncomfortable and painful.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

snowflaker

Crea wrote: »

Use this rule of thumb : don't say anything to a woman that you wouldn't want a big butch guy saying to you in prison.

Em, Hello big boy?

anewme

professore wrote: »

LIFE is uncomfortable. Try watching someone you love die in front of you. Now that's ****ing uncomfortable and painful.

That's all the more reason not to make life uncomfortable for someone else. Currently, I go to work, long hours, then to visit someone in hospital who won't be coming home.

Any unwanted comments, or unwanted harassment is not welcome and will be met with a fairly negative response.

You don't kniw what anyone else is going through.

Be kind, always.

One eyed Jack

take everything wrote: »

What are these guys doing in reaction to this. Is a backlash to bull**** from decent men long overdue.

Twitter being the equivalent of digital syphilis, I tend to avoid it.

Giving crap like this legitimacy only encourages them.

hatrickpatrick

Claire Byrne just now showing the "I've just seen Imelda Quirke's arse coming down a ladder!" scene from The Commitments and asking her panel of this is still "ok" to laugh at... Jesus f*cking Christ.

Grayson

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How is a thread about sexual assault turns into women being sissys?

BTW, statistically the most successful people are rich white males or the sons of rich white males.

RayM

take everything wrote: »

I'm not talking about male feminist/trying-to-curry-favour-with-women types. I'm talking about proper masculine men.

How fucking old are you? Twelve?