Women take no respnsibility

Nov 2012
16,699
5,570
Michigan
Why?
If you attribute sexual assault partially to the behavior of women, why not prosecute the women for "rape provocation"?
Surely it is easier to locate the victims than the perpetrator and thus more efficient use of resources.
Lying straw man
 
Nov 2012
16,699
5,570
Michigan
"One wrong move"? Such as what? Exactly what invitation is a 'young nubile girl' extending to you by dancing? Exactly what rights do you believe her dancing gives you?





How closely can a man shake his butt in tight pants to your crotch before u consider it sexual harassment?
 
Dec 2016
4,388
2,274
Canada
Please expand on men's greater responsibility.
Should be self-explanatory! With few exceptions, men can represent a physical threat to women/while the opposite is not the case. So, if we're talking strangers, avoid giving the impression that you might be following( 99% of the time, if walking alone, she's watching for potential threats), don't crowd her...even if it is someone you know.,..at work for instance, don't block or partially block a doorway, just cause you claim you have something important to say to her.....
 
Oct 2010
64,836
25,702
Colorado
Should be self-explanatory! With few exceptions, men can represent a physical threat to women/while the opposite is not the case. So, if we're talking strangers, avoid giving the impression that you might be following( 99% of the time, if walking alone, she's watching for potential threats), don't crowd her...even if it is someone you know.,..at work for instance, don't block or partially block a doorway, just cause you claim you have something important to say to her.....
Yes, I understand. That dynamic is not well appreciated by most men, the smaller person walking around in a world of bigger persons who are hard-wired to seek sex wherever and whenever with whomever.
 
Dec 2016
4,388
2,274
Canada
Amen to that. The foot becomes deformed. Depending on the extent of the deformity, wearing flats or going barefoot can become uncomfortable.

High heels also put that sexy sway in the lumbar spine, and the lower thoracic. The top of the pelvis is unnaturally tilted forward. If the woman then gains belly weight, the sway becomes more pronounced. As a result, the spinal muscles are in 24/7 protective mode. As a masseur, working on those muscles, to relax them, to help ease minor displacements, is really not possible in a single session, or even many sessions.

The downsides don't stop there. With the back swayed, the disks are deformed, and over time the outer portion of the disks become increasingly thin. The nerves that actuate muscles emerge from the spinal cord on the body side. The sensation nerves exit on the outer side, the side getting pinched. Hello sciatica. Hello, bulging or slipped disks. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I know I'm weird, but I don't see a damn thing "sexy" about the posture high heels create anyway. I see a victim of lookism.
Yes, every time I see something about the negative health effects of high heels, I start thinking of the old books and articles of upper class socialite women squeezing or worse...needing an assistant to squeeze them tightly into a corset, so they could look "presentable" at a fancy party or whatever. Some women even sustained internal organ damage like ruptured spleens from this lunacy of the 18th and 19th century late 'enlightenment.'

About "wearing flats or going barefoot," that's how everyone should go about, and if it hurts, that means damage has been done! The orthotics industry hates it, but over the past 15 years, a barefoot running fad has turned into a major movement that the "experts" can no longer suppress, because so many lifelong runners start pulling up with cartilage-wear and even more serious joint damage from years of running in newer running shoes with springy, foam midsoles that make it almost impossible to even feel the surface.

You would have thought that would prevent harm/ yet the exact opposite has occurred because, according to sports physiologists, running shoes with the typical half to one inch heel drop to toe, encourages runners to heel-strike each time they hit the ground (as it did with me for over 30 years). By doing this, the only shock absorption available is in that foam cushion because the heel, unlike landing midfoot-first as someone would do without the shoes on, has no ability to absorb shock, BUT the kicker is that the cushion causes a series of small shocks to be received and transmitted by the nervous system to the brain that are too small to be significant. Whereas, if the runner didn't have shoes on, or was wearing minimal shoes with no cushioning, one big shock would get the message across Not to do that again! Long way of saying that I've continued on running after a brief absence in a series of minimal shoes that just protect the feet and do nothing else. Changing the way I run has meant a further slowdown in average speed...along with the slowing down that comes regularly after age-40, but at least my joints aren't crippled and I can still run about half the miles each week that I did before my late-40's when I started having problems and began wasting money on expensive orthotics bullshit...that just delays and doesn't fix joint problems!
 
Dec 2016
4,388
2,274
Canada
Yes, I understand. That dynamic is not well appreciated by most men, the smaller person walking around in a world of bigger persons who are hard-wired to seek sex wherever and whenever with whomever.
Yes, that is the general dynamic, although I've noticed that a few gals who are larger....over 5'9" let's say, seem less inclined to shrink away from men than smaller women who are around 5' tall. Learning and practicing some forms of martial arts can help with confidence, and likewise, how many guys do we all know who are big and just happen to be louder than everyone else also? Many times, big guys can't fight worth shit because...well, they've never had to! They're used to getting their way and being oblivious of what everyone else is saying or doing.
 
Dec 2016
4,388
2,274
Canada
According to my wife, the Soviet system encouraged marrying for emotional reasons.

But, it's a firm tradition in Europe in general, a woman marrying the old rich fart, bearing his children. Her having very discrete affairs with a sexually attractive man is also tacitly accepted. Men having discrete affairs is .... it just is.

This is why Europeans were shaking their heads over the whole Clinton fiasco.
The authorities could encourage marriage for 'emotional' reasons, because communist systems had taken the financial necessities out of marriage...even child support!

As I've mentione elsewhere, according to ethnologist - Kristen Ghodsee's studies and interviews from Bulgaria and the former East Germany(gathered together in her book: Red Hangover), during the communist period, men often wrote complaining about women in official and unofficial clandestine media, with grievances about young women behaving badly, refusing marriage offers, refusing to cook for them after getting married etc.. It was likely mostly older men noticing cultural changes in societies that had become less patriarchal, so unmarried men felt like 'they had to compete' against other men to be noticed by prospective females...during a time when common people all had equivalent earnings and accommodations, and even working women who were having children, didn't have to worry about support from a man.

After the fall of communist systems, everything changed back, because capitalism, by its very nature, is patriarchal and hierarchical, and on average favors the interests of men over women! So, women all over Eastern Europe, are mostly back in the same box they were in before 1917, and that is no doubt, the major reason why the happiness index ratings for women are so dismal compared to those of men!
 
Likes: iolo