The new sexual hangups

[manfred]

We rightly say that the 19th century and early 20th as sexually prudish, to the point of repression.

There was some degree of relaxation in that area in the 60s to perhaps the 80s. But in recent times things are getting back to things worse than in the 19th century.

I mean, in the 19th century you could have saucy shows in the Moulin Rouge which today would be seen as "exploiting women". Remember Jacques Offenbach's operetta's? The Can Can? Few theatres would want to show that today.

We live at an age where making a woman a complement or asking her for her telephone number could result you being in court for "sexual harassment". I feel sorry for young people today, as dating has become a very risky business. Some women seem to have embarked on a war on men, and somehow they get a lot of publicity.

A woman can today accuse a man of rape, and even if it is later proved to be a lie, the man has lost his job, his family and friends, his home and his career prospects for ever, while the woman who made false allegations not only faces no consequences, she even has her identity protected, and this is seen as entirely just.

Remember the men-only charity event which had women providing entertainment? It was all over the news today, as a terrible crime against women, and some charities even handed back the money raised. No in the best possible taste, I agree, but surely every single woman attending it would know exactly why she would be paid to be there. She could simply refuse to go. But instead they take the cash first and complain later... And now we get demands that all sorts of people should be sacked from their jobs, and whatever. I would not have gone to such an event, but I cannot see a big problem with people going.

What completely confuses me is that the same women who are so vocal about waging war on men very often also defend Muslims and Islam, completely ignoring that this ideology treats women as chattel. Why would the same woman complaining that a compliment to her is harassment also tacitly agree that a Muslim husband may beat his wife?

[glitch]

In light of the Harvey Winestein case more people are standing up after the fact to the idea that Winestein not only harrassed women but also sexually assaulted women with the idea that if you do not put out you might not get considered for a part (i.e. hurt your career.) so plainly this is sexual harrassment and i wouldn't say it was rape because sadly many of the women consented. it is sexual harrassment.

Now if you are a male, and you ask a woman for a number, she says no and tells you not interested--males should leave it alone. i believe most males do leave it alone. a male who harrasses a woman after being told no, that shoud be considered hostile work environment. i don't think a male should be charged with sexual harrassment if he doesn't have power over the person--we were told that sexual harrassment is about power. So a male can harrass a woman, and can stalk a women and sexually assault a woman, but if he's not her boss, i don't think the term should be used to describe what is clearly assault.

This makes ,e think about the Aziz Ansari case where the wo,am engaged in a few sexual acts, but when it came to sex she said no and he stopped. during the other acts she didn't say no--she expected him to read her mind. so heres what im wondering was Ansari's career effected by this?

Lastly in some circles, people believe if after you give consent and you engage in sex, if the women feels dissapointed after she can even then withdraw her consent. She can say (according to some) it was rape. Dennis Praeger says, that if a women can do this a man can too and that if this is where we are heading, some men might have to staart doing this in order to nip that in the bud.

[manfred]

Hi Glitch, about this Weinstein thing, what I don't get is this: Suppose this is correct, and he really did as you say, and suggested if you want a part in a movie you need to do certain things first. I am not a woman, but if had been in such a situation, I would have told him where to get off, and then immediately make a complaint.

Some of those women, however, first did as he asked, and then, years later, complained about it. One of the ones complaining the loudest was Oprah Winfrey, even though she was a close personal friend to him for many years, and surely knew about his ways for a long time. And Meryl Streep is also talking as if Weinstein was worse than a rapist, but she actually defends a real convicted rapist, Roman Polanski.

To me this is rather a lot like the Muslim approach to sleaze... as long as it does not get discussed in public, ignore it, don't make "fitna", but when it comes out jump on the bandwagon and make sure you are more outraged than others, to prove how "moral" you are.

The reality is, a woman, when faced with unwanted advances by a man has a clear choice: say yes or say no. If you say yes, even reluctantly, your case to complain later is somewhat watery, to say the least. Also, if Weinstein did as people claim for so long, then does that not also mean there were a substantial number going along with him, and in fact encouraging him, for many years?

Why is this like London buses.... none comes along for ages, and then half a dozen at the same time?

[idesigner1]

Before going on a date man and woman should sign a simple card which shows boundaries.

1. Simple touching allowed or not.

2. Any kissing holding yes or no

3. Any suggestive language yes or no.

With next heavy date another card:

1. Who is allowed m or f to to undress.

2. Going all the way yes or no.

3. Any unusual sex yes or no.

Many men won't go through trouble. No wonder almost all will go to prostitute!!

[Fernando]

Remember the men-only charity event which had women providing entertainment? It was all over the news today, as a terrible crime against women, and some charities even handed back the money raised. No in the best possible taste, I agree, but surely every single woman attending it would know exactly why she would be paid to be there. She could simply refuse to go. But instead they take the cash first and complain later...

They only complained, if at all, after being wound up by the Financial Times. The paper - which must have expected such goings-on - sent an undercover reporter to catch them, for whatever reason.

[glitch]

Hi Glitch, about this Weinstein thing, what I don't get is this: Suppose this is correct, and he really did as you say, and suggested if you want a part in a movie you need to do certain things first. I am not a woman, but if had been in such a situation, I would have told him where to get off, and then immediately make a complaint.

Some of those women, however, first did as he asked, and then, years later, complained about it. One of the ones complaining the loudest was Oprah Winfrey, even though she was a close personal friend to him for many years, and surely knew about his ways for a long time. And Meryl Streep is also talking as if Weinstein was worse than a rapist, but she actually defends a real convicted rapist, Roman Polanski.

To me this is rather a lot like the Muslim approach to sleaze... as long as it does not get discussed in public, ignore it, don't make "fitna", but when it comes out jump on the bandwagon and make sure you are more outraged than others, to prove how "moral" you are.

The reality is, a woman, when faced with unwanted advances by a man has a clear choice: say yes or say no. If you say yes, even reluctantly, your case to complain later is somewhat watery, to say the least. Also, if Weinstein did as people claim for so long, then does that not also mean there were a substantial number going along with him, and in fact encouraging him, for many years?

Why is this like London buses.... none comes along for ages, and then half a dozen at the same time?

well, one (In my opinion) i have been told that it is difficult for to stand up. with other women behind them i think its easier--still you are right it feels sheisty that so many women have come forward--after years of silence. i for one feel that silence is bad.i feel it makes some complicit. Remember as well some of these are simply allegations--not actual charges brought against a person. juxtapose this with actual cases brought against people--those people who are actually in the middle of litigation.

Right now Hollywood is trying to say, "we don't want this to happen anymore,' but we dont mind if people's careers are ruined--no trial--no conviction.Someone talks to the press tells a story--admits that no rape happened--but they felt uncomfortable and didn't say anything. Or said, no--the person stopped--and the peron went home--and then lambasted someone over social media a week or mnth or year later. No charges, just moral outrage and talking to the papers.

Now, when i was in a class--and asked if a woman has sex with a man, and then later claims it was rape, but you know didn't go to te cops--didn't make an effort to actually seekjustice, but goes around parties, telling people that he raped me. I asked students to comment on that--you can imagine what women said. Silence is connected to their fear--i just feel that justice delayed is harder to prove--and i think morally people have altered their morals--this recent situation is part of that trend.

[manfred]

Yes, I can understand that fear is a factor.

But does not mostly apply to children suffering abuse? They cannot see a way out, do not know who to talk to, and what will happen. What if they are not believed?

That is why quite often victims of child abuse only come forward years later when they have grown up, often after their abuser has died, because they have been threatened by their abusers.

But a grown woman? Surely it would be sexist to suggest that somehow a grown up woman cannot work out what is appropriate to do when she is molested. Silence is almost complicit, and it will most certainly encourage the man to try the same again. If right from the start the very first woman complained, then she would have saved other women much heart ache.

Also, I think it is fair that overall we have changed our attitudes to to this kind of stuff in recent years. In the 80s and 90 certainly, Weinberg's behaviour would have not been approved, but not really seen as very serious either, at least not by many people. Weinberg could not have known that 20 or more years later his behaviour could cost him his career and more. Back then, let's face it, TV and movie people, as well as pop stars and agents often behaved with an extraordinary amount of sleaze. So should people be judged by the standards of the time of the offence or by modern standards?

I would suggest there should be an agency where a woman can go and confidentially discuss her experience, and seek advice and hep on how to proceed. Even if she decides not to make a complaint right away, at least she could later point at her meeting to point out that she did raise it with someone at the time.

But I also think that there should be a time limit after which complaints should not be considered by courts or tribunals. And there should be a punishment to false accusers commensurate to damage caused.

[Nosuperstition]

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=1803&p=196965&hilit=Palanadu#p196965

In addition to the Palanadu war,there might be another reason why sexual promiscuity was tolerated in the Kakatiya kingdom with Warangal as its capital as had been witnessed in the times of Marco Polo.The reason is when Muslims banned Hindus from running much profitable successful Indian Ocean Trade,Hindu kings decided to increase native productivity.Since agriculture was the sole source of economy back then,to increase productivity,Brahmins knowledgeable in new agri techniques from North India were imported according to historical accounts.Now since locals spoke Telugu and official court language was Sanskrit,in order to bridge the divide between non local people of class and local mass,liasons had to be overlooked.Now since the conditions in the West have changed as the Second World War was some 60 years past and since immigration is being tightened,there seems to be an ongoing conservative effort to tighten people of different compartments in their own sections with hangups being once again encouraged.