Almost all young women in the UK have been sexually harassed [MOD WARNING 1st POST]

Sakana

terryduff12 wrote: »

Might be a few billion men that would disagree with you Sakana

Not with genuine arguments against it, though, I wouldn't think!

TomTomTim

Sakana wrote: »

As a man, I think I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a real objection to a pill/treatment that reduces aggression and intense sexual desire. These urges aren't needed anymore. We've moved on from bludgeoning our sexual rivals to death and taking our desired mates by force, haven't we? Kinda. Our bodies certainly haven't. Why else do we need to teach our young men about how to behave towards girls and women?

We treat lots of undesirable but natural mental states with pharmaceuticals. Why not this? I'm not talking doped up levels of treatment here.

This is likely why male feminists end up getting caught up in sexual assault/harassment scandals far more than normal men. You have issues with your own urges, which you project onto others, and consider all men bad because of your own deviancy. Most men don't struggle with their urges, we aren't primitive, no matter how much you try and pretend we are. You're free to cut off your member, lower your testosterone even further, but don't dare lump the rest of us in with yourself.

terryduff12

Maybe the simple answer is getting rid of the internet, porn on demand and mobile phones.

Sakana

Sakana wrote: »

As a man, I think I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a real objection to a pill/treatment that reduces aggression and intense sexual desire. These urges aren't needed anymore. We've moved on from bludgeoning our sexual rivals to death and taking our desired mates by force, haven't we? Kinda. Our bodies certainly haven't. Why else do we need to teach our young men about how to behave towards girls and women?

We treat lots of undesirable but natural mental states with pharmaceuticals. Why not this? I'm not talking doped up levels of treatment here.

Intense sexual desire is something the majority of men don't need a pill for to control. If it's that bad for the minority they should speak to a psychiatrist.

As a man it's a daft idea.

Sakana

Sakana wrote: »

As a man, I think I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a real objection to a pill/treatment that reduces aggression and intense sexual desire.

I'd be hard-pressed to think of any time in my life where I felt any serious aggression or intense sexual desire (apart from the appropriate situation for the sexual desire). Dunno why we need to medicate men for this.

What medicines would you consider appropriate?

These urges aren't needed anymore. We've moved on from bludgeoning our sexual rivals to death and taking our desired mates by force, haven't we? Kinda.

Be honest. How many men have you known personally, or even heard of (localised), who have behaved this way? Not opinion pieces in the newspaper, or news reports on crimes. Men, that you know, behaving as you've just described.

Our bodies certainly haven't. Why else do we need to teach our young men about how to behave towards girls and women?

Because society is more than biological impulses. We are conforming to how society changes over time, and the conditioning we receive through parenting, schools, the media, etc.

Might be a better question to ask, why there isn't a clearer introduction, and teaching of what is acceptable behavior (specifics for both genders) in society.. because there isn't any such guidance anymore, except what we "expect" parents to provide, and the reinforcement of rules in schools. The reliance on parents to teach (without any training in parenting) children how to behave, without telling parents exactly what/how to do it, has always seemed utterly foolish to me.

We treat lots of undesirable but natural mental states with pharmaceuticals. Why not this? I'm not talking doped up levels of treatment here.

And we're seeing the effects of drugs being applied to mental states in the US.. and not in a good way. There's far too little appreciation for how the introduction of chemicals affect the mind over the long-term, never mind, the range of physical reactions.

nullzero

Sakana wrote: »

As a man, I think I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a real objection to a pill/treatment that reduces aggression and intense sexual desire. These urges aren't needed anymore. We've moved on from bludgeoning our sexual rivals to death and taking our desired mates by force, haven't we? Kinda. Our bodies certainly haven't. Why else do we need to teach our young men about how to behave towards girls and women?

We treat lots of undesirable but natural mental states with pharmaceuticals. Why not this? I'm not talking doped up levels of treatment here.

Men who agree with this type of idea will be very understanding when their wives boyfriends won't take those pills.

What a load of utter nonsense.

Women don't want to be assaulted by sick weirdos but they find masculinity attractive as well. The suggestion that the majority of men who are in control of their biological urges need to be chemically altered to suit some bizarre narrative is repugnant to any sane person.

Sakana

Sakana wrote: »

As a man, I think I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a real objection to a pill/treatment that reduces aggression and intense sexual desire. These urges aren't needed anymore. We've moved on from bludgeoning our sexual rivals to death and taking our desired mates by force, haven't we? Kinda. Our bodies certainly haven't. Why else do we need to teach our young men about how to behave towards girls and women?

We treat lots of undesirable but natural mental states with pharmaceuticals. Why not this? I'm not talking doped up levels of treatment here.

Post of the day.

Sakana

TomTomTim wrote: »

This is likely why male feminists end up getting caught up in sexual assault/harassment scandals far more than normal men. You have issues with your own urges, which you project onto others, and consider all men bad because of your own deviancy. Most men don't struggle with their urges, we aren't primitive, no matter how much you try and pretend we are. You're free to cut off your member, lower your testosterone even further, but don't dare lump the rest of us in with yourself.

No-one's lumping you in with anyone. I have regular urges, on the whole, I would think. Maybe a quirky kink or two!

But from lads I know who discuss their fantasies openly, many of them are objectionable at best. They're definitely not something they'd want women to know about.

A blanket lowering of male testosterone and sex drive would not be a bad thing.

JJayoo

Sakana wrote: »

As a man, I think I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a real objection to a pill/treatment that reduces aggression and intense sexual desire. These urges aren't needed anymore. We've moved on from bludgeoning our sexual rivals to death and taking our desired mates by force, haven't we? Kinda. Our bodies certainly haven't. Why else do we need to teach our young men about how to behave towards girls and women?

We treat lots of undesirable but natural mental states with pharmaceuticals. Why not this? I'm not talking doped up levels of treatment here.

Castrate yourself like a good lad.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

But thats what rape is. And partly accounts for the difficulty in securing conviction in rape trials.
(In Ireland anyway, probably UK the same. Open to correction).

I agree but the poster I was responding to seemed to imply that certain incidents in Sweden would not be considered rape elsewhere.

It was also hinted that if it wasn't violent or coerced then it can't be rape (by the difference in legal definitions, not by the poster) - this is what I disagree with.

I think the difficulty comes when the defense is that there was sex, but it was consentual. Unless there's witnesses (which there usually isn't) how can a jury be sure what happened?

Sakana

Sakana wrote: »

But from lads I know who discuss their fantasies openly, many of them are objectionable at best. They're definitely not something they'd want women to know about.

If they're discussing their fantasies openly, then they're looking to get a reaction from those around them, and as such, unlikely to be what they're actually interested in.. In any case, fantasies are generally unrealistic, unobtainable, and something we're all somewhat embarrassed about. I have explored my sexuality quite well, and I can say with all honesty, I've been more shocked by what my female partners wanted than anything I came up by myself.

Eric Cartman

Sakana wrote: »

No-one's lumping you in with anyone. I have regular urges, on the whole, I would think. Maybe a quirky kink or two!

But from lads I know who discuss their fantasies openly, many of them are objectionable at best. They're definitely not something they'd want women to know about.

A blanket lowering of male testosterone and sex drive would not be a bad thing.

I severely doubt ther fantasies are anything that 2 or more consenting adults couldnt agree upon, they hardly sat there infront of you and said they wanted to rape a woman and cut up her body

Maybe I live a sheltered life but if one of my mates started going on in detail about their sexual fantasies (beyond fancying x, y or z) I would find that extremely weird, and so would the other lads.

gormdubhgorm

bubblypop wrote: »

Change attitudes
The attitude that women are over reacting if they don't like being wolf whistled at, or comments made about their appearance.
That somehow the women are wrong.
That's what needs to change

Don't some women like being wolf whistled at though? Especially if the guy is 'hot'. For some women it would make their day if not overtly maybe secretly

(NSFW)

Older women are less likely to view the wolf whistle as sexual harassment.

The 20 somethings are more likely to view the wolf whistle as sexual harassment.

That is the problem women are not some homogeneous group. Women are individuals, people with their own thoughts and opinions.

Then of course there is the 'no means no'

It is not strictly true


See Bill Burr (NSFW)

So reporting sexual harassment depends on what the individual views as 'sexual harassment' and when they don't.

Eric Cartman

Kase Vast Meat wrote: »

Maybe I live a sheltered life but if one of my mates started going on in detail about their sexual fantasies (beyond fancying x, y or z) I would find that extremely weird, and so would the other lads.

Absolutely. “A threesome with x and y woman would be class” would be as far into that conversation as id want to go.

TomTomTim

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Don't some women like being wolf whistled at though? Especially if the guy is 'hot'. For some women it would make their day if not overtly maybe secretly

(NSFW)

Older women are less likely to view the wolf whistle as sexual harassment.

The 20 somethings are more likely to view the wolf whistle as sexual harassment.

That is the problem women are not some homogeneous group. Women are individuals, people with their own thoughts and opinions.

Then of course there is the 'no means no'

It is not strictly true


See Bill Burr (NSFW)

So reporting sexual harassment depends on what the individual views as 'sexual harassment' and when they don't.

I love this image, as it clearly highlights how many of these types don't even understand themselves.

https://ibb.co/XWS1tTy

gormdubhgorm

TomTomTim wrote: »

I love this image, as it clearly highlights how many of these types don't even understand themselves.

https://ibb.co/XWS1tTy

Brilliant, it sums the minefield of contradictions up.

Mike Murdock

TomTomTim wrote: »

I love this image, as it clearly highlights how many of these types don't even understand themselves.

https://ibb.co/XWS1tTy

Valenti is one of the "guiding" lights of Modern Third Wave Feminism too!

Sakana

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be hard-pressed to think of any time in my life where I felt any serious aggression or intense sexual desire (apart from the appropriate situation for the sexual desire). Dunno why we need to medicate men for this.

Exactly. Your life. You're one in, what, 3.5 billion? Of course the vast majority of men won't commit an act of sexual violence in their lives, but we're not talking about most men.

Deleted User wrote: »

What medicines would you consider appropriate?

Wouldn't have a clue, but it could be figured out.

Deleted User wrote: »

Be honest. How many men have you known personally, or even heard of (localised), who have behaved this way? Not opinion pieces in the newspaper, or news reports on crimes. Men, that you know, behaving as you've just described.

One, that I know of. His family moved out of the area because of it. But I know and know of maybe a dozen people who've done inappropriate things to women that mightn't get them sent to court but were definitely outside the bounds of decency.

Deleted User wrote: »

Might be a better question to ask, why there isn't a clearer introduction, and teaching of what is acceptable behavior (specifics for both genders) in society.. because there isn't any such guidance anymore, except what we "expect" parents to provide, and the reinforcement of rules in schools. The reliance on parents to teach (without any training in parenting) children how to behave, without telling parents exactly what/how to do it, has always seemed utterly foolish to me.

I'm all for that, personally.

Sakana

terryduff12 wrote: »

Maybe the simple answer is getting rid of the internet, porn on demand and mobile phones.

Porn, certainly.

Stateofyou

KaneToad wrote: »

This never happens. Items of clothing are sometimes used as evidence for both the prosecution & the defence. Given the horrific nature of these crimes there are many unpalatable and distressing pieces of evidence. Unfortunately, they need to be heard.

There is no "parade".

Excuse me, you're wrong. It was all over the news at the time, you must have been under a rock.

Details of the closing argument presented by his senior counsel Elizabeth O'Connell, however, attracted widespread attention and prompted a series of online protest movements.
"Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone?" she asked, according to the Examiner's report.
"You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

https://twitter.com/ibelieveher_ire/status/1061326556428226560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1061326556428226560%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-europe-46207304

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46207304

Sakana

JJayoo wrote: »

Castrate yourself like a good lad.

I wouldn't go that far, now! But if a reduction in sexual desire/or whatever causes men to make sexual attacks meant a better and safer life for women, would you really object to that?

livia21

terryduff12 wrote: »

Maybe the simple answer is getting rid of the internet, porn on demand and mobile phones.

Nah ..wont help

I was sexualliy harrassed and sexually assuaulted in the 80's

nolivesmatter

Stateofyou wrote: »

Excuse me, you're wrong. It was all over the news at the time, you must have been under a rock.

Details of the closing argument presented by his senior counsel Elizabeth O'Connell, however, attracted widespread attention and prompted a series of online protest movements.
"Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone?" she asked, according to the Examiner's report.
"You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

https://twitter.com/ibelieveher_ire/status/1061326556428226560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1061326556428226560%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-europe-46207304

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46207304

Post a picture of your knickers?
Yeah I'm sure that wouldn't have been pervert fodder.

Mad_maxx

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Don't some women like being wolf whistled at though? Especially if the guy is 'hot'. For some women it would make their day if not overtly maybe secretly

(NSFW)

Older women are less likely to view the wolf whistle as sexual harassment.

The 20 somethings are more likely to view the wolf whistle as sexual harassment.

That is the problem women are not some homogeneous group. Women are individuals, people with their own thoughts and opinions.

Then of course there is the 'no means no'

It is not strictly true


See Bill Burr (NSFW)

So reporting sexual harassment depends on what the individual views as 'sexual harassment' and when they don't.

no reasonable man could defend the kind of sh1t Ann Robinson claims happened in the newspaper office when she was younger

ditto with that carry on one the Tube , i doubt however that those are anything more than a small minority of situations ?

a guy pleasuring himself on the tube is obvious grounds for calling the police

Sakana

Sakana wrote: »

Exactly. Your life. You're one in, what, 3.5 billion? Of course the vast majority of men won't commit an act of sexual violence in their lives, but we're not talking about most men.

And yet, the men you know are representative of all men. Right. Ok. That makes sense.

As a man, I think I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a real objection to a pill/treatment that reduces aggression and intense sexual desire. These urges aren't needed anymore. We've moved on from bludgeoning our sexual rivals to death and taking our desired mates by force, haven't we? Kinda. Our bodies certainly haven't. Why else do we need to teach our young men about how to behave towards girls and women?

Sakana

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet, the men you know are representative of all men. Right. Ok. That makes sense.

Think of all the men you've known in your life. Are you really claiming that you don't think a lot of them would benefit from less sexual and casual aggression?

gormdubhgorm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

a guy pleasuring himself on the tube is obvious grounds for calling the police

I never that wasn't. That extreme above is obviously is sexual harassment. The problem is how it is reported. Are all 'reports' of sexual harassment (minor to major) in the survey above resulting in charges? And were they deemed sexual harassment in a legal sense. Or how much of the 97% were just 'reported'?

nullzero

Sakana wrote: »

Think of all the men you've known in your life. Are you really claiming that you don't think a lot of them would benefit from less sexual and casual aggression?

Are you suggesting testosterone levels should be reduced for all men?

gormdubhgorm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Excuse me, you're wrong. It was all over the news at the time, you must have been under a rock.

Details of the closing argument presented by his senior counsel Elizabeth O'Connell, however, attracted widespread attention and prompted a series of online protest movements.
"Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone?" she asked, according to the Examiner's report.
"You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

https://twitter.com/ibelieveher_ire/status/1061326556428226560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1061326556428226560%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-europe-46207304

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46207304

How does that tweet 'support' the girl? Madness!

Sakana

nullzero wrote: »

Are you suggesting testosterone levels should be reduced for all men?

If it wouldn't cause a medical issue, definitely.

nolivesmatter

Sakana wrote: »

If it wouldn't cause a medical issue, definitely.

Yeah...worst idea yet.

Quantum Erasure

Stateofyou wrote: »

KaneToad wrote: »

For one, not asking a woman what she was wearing and parading her thong around the courtroom would be a good start.

This never happens. Items of clothing are sometimes used as evidence for both the prosecution & the defence....

There is no "parade".

Excuse me, you're wrong.

...


"Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone?" she asked, according to the Examiner's report.
"You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

Counsel for man acquitted of rape suggested jurors should reflect on underwear worn by the 17yo complainant. Following this wholly unacceptable comment

,

So, no parading around...

"Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was ... open to meeting someone and being with someone?"
I presume, but dont know, that this was brought up to counter testimony of the girl that she wouldn't have been open to advances from anyone

Sakana

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Yeah...worst idea yet.

Yeah, fewer wars and less violence generally. Sounds horrendous.

Mad_maxx

Sakana wrote: »

If it wouldn't cause a medical issue, definitely.

chilling statement

nullzero

Sakana wrote: »

If it wouldn't cause a medical issue, definitely.

The problem is that it does cause serious medical issues.

I'm assuming you can go research them yourself and I don't have to provide links.

Can you imagine somebody suggesting that women reducing their estrogen levels?

nolivesmatter

Sakana wrote: »

Yeah, fewer wars and less violence generally. Sounds horrendous.

Test it out on yourself, let me know how it goes.

TanookiMario

Sakana wrote: »

As a man, I think I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a real objection to a pill/treatment that reduces aggression and intense sexual desire. These urges aren't needed anymore. We've moved on from bludgeoning our sexual rivals to death and taking our desired mates by force, haven't we? Kinda. Our bodies certainly haven't. Why else do we need to teach our young men about how to behave towards girls and women?

We treat lots of undesirable but natural mental states with pharmaceuticals. Why not this? I'm not talking doped up levels of treatment here.

Would this be mandatory or voluntary or what?

A real objection would be the question of consent.
Which is kind of hilarious considering the subject of this thread.

As someone who is happily married and not particularly aggressive or intense, by my own self assessment, I'm not really sure I'd be that bothered to take such a pill. I feel a bit fed up and tired most days actually.

Another real objection would be how the administering of this treatment would be managed. How would you know if some guy is off his meds?

A big objection would be the treatment of members of the LGBTQ community in relation to your proposal.

Would this treatment also apply to gay and bi men?
Given the history of using chemical castration on gay men this might be a hard sell to say the least.

How would trans individuals be treated in this scenario? It seems they have enough trouble without having someone beating down their door and asking to see genitals before administering the Sakana Treatment.

Next objection would simply be one of identity.
How would you even be defining what "a man" is in these circumstances?
It seems like you would intend to target only self-identified men who are also self-identifying as straight? At what age would all this begin?

If it would be voluntary then by all means you go ahead and crack on. If you think you could be a risk then for sure you should volunteer yourself for such a program.

Sakana

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Test it out on yourself, let me know how it goes.

Why would I do that? Medical professionals would handle it.

nolivesmatter

Sakana wrote: »

Why would I do that? Medical professionals would handle it.

Sure. That's assumed. Didn't imagine you'd be draining it out yourself.

nullzero

Sakana wrote: »

Wouldn't have a clue

The only sensible thing you've said all day.

Sakana

TanookiMario wrote: »

If it would be voluntary then by all means you go ahead and crack on. If you think you could be a risk then for sure you should volunteer yourself for such a program.

If people with potentially dangerous sex drives and/or testosterone could be given a treatment to reduce them, would you object to that?

As for the rest of your post, the particulars haven't been formed yet. I don't think it's a viable approach to the problem of sexual violence against women; just look at the enraged reaction over the last few pages. I could see it being introduced once genetic manipulation becomes mainstream, though.

A more feasible solution is for everyone to be tracked at all times. I wouldn't object to that either. I'm assuming you would?

Sakana

nullzero wrote: »

The only sensible thing you've said all day.

Men are more aggressive and violent than women. There is no debate about that. If there was a medical treatment to make them less so, I'd be all for it. Wouldn't you?

Quantum Erasure

We need to go full on Demolition Man, get rid of physical sexual intercourse altogether

nullzero

Sakana wrote: »

If people with potentially dangerous sex drives and/or testosterone could be given a treatment to reduce them, would you object to that?

As for the rest of your post, the particulars haven't been formed yet. I don't think it's a viable approach to the problem of sexual violence against women; just look at the enraged reaction over the last few pages. I could see it being introduced once genetic manipulation becomes mainstream, though.

A more feasible solution is for everyone to be tracked at all times. I wouldn't object to that either. I'm assuming you would?

This all seems a bit rich coming from somebody who started a thread about how he sent his brothers girlfriend a sexually explicit Facebook message as you explained "she has the same first name and similar surname to a woman I was sexting regularly".

I think you might be trying to project your own deviancy onto all men. Maybe start by cleaning your own house first eh?

Sakana

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

We need to go full on Demolition Man, get rid of physical sexual intercourse altogether

“We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now.”

Big Brother may have been on to something.

gormdubhgorm

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

We need to go full on Demolition Man, get rid of physical sexual intercourse altogether

As long as those shells are not brought in, instead of the jacks roll That is where I would draw the line.

nullzero

Sakana wrote: »

Men are more aggressive and violent than women. There is no debate about that. If there was a medical treatment to make them less so, I'd be all for it. Wouldn't you?

No because you cannot change millions of years of evolution through medicine without there being serious side effects.

Any cursory research would have revealed this to you.

TanookiMario

Sakana wrote: »

If people with potentially dangerous sex drives and/or testosterone could be given a treatment to reduce them, would you object to that?

As for the rest of your post, the particulars haven't been formed yet. I don't think it's a viable approach to the problem of sexual violence against women; just look at the enraged reaction over the last few pages. I could see it being introduced once genetic manipulation becomes mainstream, though.

A more feasible solution is for everyone to be tracked at all times. I wouldn't object to that either. I'm assuming you would?

Regarding the bolded I would once again remind you about the concept of consent.

The problem with giving someone a medical treatment potentially against their will is that it's a violation.

I see the argument you are making but it's flawed from any decent moral point of view.

I think if people were allowed to volunteer for such a treatment then that shouldn't really be an issue as long as it's safe etc.

I'd be a bit concerned if we were doing something like measuring levels in high school kids and then forcing a treatment on them "for the greater good". You are essentially punishing them for pre-crime.

You are saying that it's ANY individual who is flagged as having high testosterone or dangerous sex drive, yes? So not necessarily just men and boys but also people who may not identify as such?

Surely it would need to be voluntary?

TanookiMario

Sakana wrote: »

Men are more aggressive and violent than women. There is no debate about that. If there was a medical treatment to make them less so, I'd be all for it. Wouldn't you?

There's a bit of a flaw in your logic there.
Even if men are more aggressive and violent than women, there are still aggressive and violent women.
Why would this medical treatment only apply to men?

Some kid who is being battered around the house by his abusive mother should be afforded the same protections as anyone else in society, right?

So why not just a medical treatment for the entire human race?

We could all be drugged and tracked and we'd live in a perfect world.