...so using fear as a means of improving behaviour.

@VineetHonkan No. Awareness. However most good people who would like a respectable place in society should fear being thought of as a disgusting pig, don't you think? Exploiting and degrading a person for personal pleasure should not be tolerated as "boys being boys" it should be called what it is.

It's a social awareness issue - intended to change the way society sees sexual harrassment - as more prevalent and serious than many have thought for years.

@Julie808 Give me an example of when using fear has led to a beneficial change in humankind...

@VineetHonkan Again, I replied no, it's not fear, it's awareness.

@Julie808 alright.

@HomeAloneSunday I find it interesting that compliments on appearance from strangers can be considered to be negative. From a woman's perspective you're right to ask what are they looking at, because there are some people out there who are like that, but then again there are those that are not. They honestly are saying what they see...calling it like it is in a sense.

@HomeAloneSunday wow...so being honest, even if from a stranger, is considered a pick up line.

@HomeAloneSunday I find it interesting that you cannot separate a compliment from suggestive dialogue. You must be a real winner at parties.

@HomeAloneSunday Also, Women empowerment is excellent, but just like how you say that saying something as innocent as that dress looks good on you, or you look lovely today, sounds harassing, then I too can claim that women can weaponize this. For example, the women who claimed sexual harassment from deGrasse Tyson. While one actually mentioned assault, (for which NDT wrote a very strong apology, AND welcomed an investigation mind you), other women discussed how uncomfortable he made them. I hope you are aware that discomfort is not the same as harassment.

whatever...

Couldn't have put it better.

Yes but the point is that people do report and nothing gets done. Even worse they get punished for doing so and often sexually smeared publicly.

Its a problem because when you get down to it rape is unprovable. On some level it comes down to who do you listen to.

I have been through it and seen multiple friends go through it. I have never seen a conviction. It's to costly on a personal level to push it that far, and it usually doesn't work. Its functionally legal.

@HomeAloneSunday this isn't then and prior atrocities don't make it ok to commit different new ones.

@Biosteelman attrocities like accusing people for what they did? You do realize in many of those big cases the accusers were forced to move due to death threats and there were usually multiple other people who had made offiicial accusations in the past but didnt want to destroy their families by bringing it back up.

@MsAl you either get it or you don't.

@HomeAloneSunday most States don't have a statute of limitations on sex crimes.

@Biosteelman "you either get it or you don't." I guess that is exactly what I would say to you.

@MsAl
I'm ok with that. You believe in mob justice and I don't.

@HomeAloneSunday you don't need DNA (in 1% of cases they use DNA to convict) evidence to corroborate a story of rape. Just like you don't need it for Sexual harassment If you don't understand how the legal system works I recommend a civics class or two.

@HomeAloneSunday No. You don't need a witness to corroborate a story. Your imagination is amazing how you keep inserting infactual statements I never made.

But if you insist. Investigators by the process of interviewing both parties can begin to ascertain what elements of the story are uncontested. After that thorough investigation can lead them to finding inconsistencies in one story or other evidence corroborating eithers claims. Waiting 30 years to say a guy raped you or touched you wrong. Further complicates the matter as a lot of evidence disappears

My point wasn't even about this specifically but all viral media used to persecute people without due process.

@HomeAloneSunday I said you can't accuse someone off a crime without.... not a law enforcement thing. There's the other issue. Which is the real issue with SJW practice of viral media exposure. You said the "creep". Without any evidence of an event, without any perspective, you assumed every male who is accused is a creep. This exact mentality is why it's a disgusting practice.

@HomeAloneSunday Its not a man or woman issue to me. It's a matter of group mentality that has caused immediate outcry and repercussions that skip due process. Literal mob mentality.

You had a hard knee jerk reaction to a guy who who was a complete dillhole. He had a consequence, as I'm sure you know you're a pretty cool chick, which means he missed out on that.

I'm the guy who would have had words with a guy like that in a club or bar. Then checked on you afterwards. (Similar events have happened like that around me. That is how I am.)

Not every slight in society has repercussions or even is addressed. There is a reason we have a statue of limitations for most crimes. I support the original purpose for the #metoo movement which was to raise awareness of transgressions that have occurred to women.
I don't support any SJW mob mentality "let's find where someone works because I saw a tweet or 30 second video online and ruin their lives." Which is what I'm talking about.

I didnt see the barrage of accusations being repeatedly proven false. Seems like most ended up being true or sometimes unprovable. Alot of times the accusers back down due to death threats and stuff in those big public cases. What are you supposed to do when you are raped but you can't prove it? It's not provable. If you accuse somebody of that without strong proof you are made out as a whore and a liar. The only case in my personal life I know of that did get prosecuted was a girl I went to Middle school with. She told, and won. She was still known by everyone as that girl that got raped. Makes you kind of gross and untouchable to your peers if you do win. No one wants people knowing they got raped.

It did take the direction of different political sides using victims as weapons against people they don't like. That is gross. Doesn't mean they didn't do it.

Statistics say 1 in 4 women is raped. From life I would think it is much higher but I grew up poor. Its probably less in more protected areas of society. That means there are alot of men out there though that got away with it at the time.

@MsAl I was a middle class teen first time I was raped; second time in my 40’s; narrowly escaped it again ten years later. That’s almost three just for me, so I’m sure the incidence is higher. All mine were date/partner assaults.
I never reported any of them; what’s the point? Be forced to relive it only to be shamed/blamed?

well, @aquaman, pretty much everything you just said it patently false. congratulations. that's not so easy to achieve.

g

@CarolinaGirl60 Yes most rape is like that, and how could it ever be proven? I have only ever seen severe backlash and loss of social status when someone comes forward about rape by someone they know. It fizzles out and only succeeds in making them sexually gross and uncomfortable to everyone who knows about it.

It does affect all incomes to. I probably shouldn't have put that in. It does seem like the situations one is in and around make it easier to be victimized in the lower income levels. Also not as much power to fight back legally or socially. I also have low social skills so that has alot to do with it personally. People instinctively go after those who won't be able to accuse them successfully or won't be believed.

@genessa well what an intellectually sound argument. I mean, thank the lord above for allowing me, such a lowly, unthinking ape-chimp hybrid for being graced by the wisdom of such a deep and profound comment as, "nope you're wrong cause I said so." Kind of highlights everything wrong with the me too movement as an analogy.

And by the way, if your at all curious to know, why I claimed the majority of these accusations are proven false is a very old and simple concept. Accusations are literally worthless in the criminal justice system. Why are they worthless? Because of an idea that so many people seem to have forgotten, that enables fraudsters and activists to make false accusations and many times get away with it, and that idea is the presumption of innocence. To presume every accusation is not only true, but that the accused should be punished immediately is literally Stalin'esque. Today people may have forgotten about this principle, but tomorrow is a new day, and I truly hope that neither you nor I will ever have to benefit from this, but if that moment were to come, perhaps the contempt and forgetfulness would subside. Even if only momentarily.

@Aquaman pardon me. i didn't mean to respond seriously and thoughtfully, as if you were NOT a troll. my bad. i knew you were a troll and i ignored it, for the sake of communicating with others who might have read your trollery. i never imagined you could actually read. (actually, what you've just said doesn't indicate that you have actually read what i said, beyond divining, perhaps by intuition, that i was disagreeing with you. i'm just too damned nice.)

now, for those who can actually read and think: 1. accusations are not worthless. they prompt investigation. the presumption is of course of innocence but that doesn't mean that accusations should be dismissed out of hand. they get investigated and are often proven true. aquaman claims that most are proven to be false, and there is no basis for that claim. presumption is one thing; dismissing all accusations because of that presumption is absurd. 2. no one is presuming every accusation is true. that is a fantasy in aquaman's poor muddled head. 3. therefore no one is presuming that every accusation should lead directly to punishment without stopping for evidence, adjudication and conviction first. he's making this shit up. 4. "you're wrong because i said so" isn't MY tactic. that's violating the presumption of MY innocence lol. 5. he's a troll, folks. no, i'm not saying this because i disagree with him, or even because he got nasty when i disagreed with him. i'm saying it because, as it happens, he's a troll.

g

@genessa well, since you've made a few claims to knowledge, we can certainly evaluate them and come to some conclusions. Your original reply to me was, "pretty much everything you just said is patently false." What does this claim to knowledge actually imply? The words "pretty much" at the very least would betray some doubt if not uncertainty. To then, in the exact same sentence use the terms patently false, is literally oxymoronic. As I'm sure you are aware, patently means without doubt. So to re-read your sentence with the actual definitions, would go like this..."sort of, basically, everything you just said is clearly and without doubt false. Now, what is a troll? A troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off topic messages in an online community with the sole intent of provoking other users into an emotional response (since I know you've already stopped reading this and are spitting fire at your keyboard, troll-1, you-0. We'll see who's literate~Now back to trolling) or to generally disrupt normal on topic discussions. So first off, your long winded response still didn't mention a single thing I wrote in my response that is patently false. To say you simply havent seen the false allegations is not an actual rebuttal to my admittedly hyperbolic statement regarding the pathological left. If you want to criticize me in response to a failed movement, that's fine but your priorities seem slightly misinformed. Besides, you not seeing something isnt a rebuttal, its just the acceptable bigotry of the left. In terms of who's the actual troll, my reply was not an effort to inspire your emotional response. You are more than welcome to balance yourself on the seat of your toilet, but please, upon staring out the bathroom window, don't complain about what you then see through your neighbors. My remarks have been to the point raised by the OP. Your remarks claim to rebut mine, yet do nothing more than attack me. Which is fine. I'm used to it by now, trolls like you don't just lurk in the dark, but lurk in all corners of the web these days. Lets see if you have the intellectual integrity to disassemble my arguments or if your own fortitude only extends to the ever so meager length of not very witty ad hominem.

@Aquaman "The words "pretty much" at the very least would betray some doubt if not uncertainty. " wrong. that is not what pretty much means. it means you said a few true words, not that i had uncertainty. your first sentence had nothing wrong with it. everything that followed was garbafe.
seriously, is english not your first language or do you twist people's words on purpose?

your assessment of a troll is correct; you are describing yourself. applying it to me is ridiculous, but then, you know that and are doing it on purpose. it's a typical troll tactic.

i am not balanced on the seat of anyone's toilet but i know stupid slurs when i see them flung; you're the one sitting close to the poo. my remarks DO rebut yours, but you somehow feel attacked. well, i'll grant you that i did call you a troll, and that IS an attack, although i was just warning others about you. (my other remarks were not offered as an attack but you can't tell the difference, or choose to pretend you can't.) you are used to it? maybe there is a REASON you feel attacked. maybe you, an actual troll, SHOULD be attacked. i attacked your ideas (well, the ideas you present as your own, anyway) and then warned others that you're a troll, which you are. calling a troll a troll is a good thing.

oh, and you're still a troll, and a gaslighting one as well. fortunately, a lot of people can tell the difference and will not just take your word for it when you turn that crap on me. calling me a troll doesn't untrollify you. you're still a troll, and a nasty one at that.

i stand by everything i said.

g