Is #MeToo worsening the divide between men and women?

239 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

You do not give a shit about the sexual harassment or rape of women.

​MegB wrote:

Sadly, I agree with your opinion. Men like Rev Pesky and Cody will never acknowledge the privilege they inhabit...

I'll begin by pointing out both the above are rank personal insults that should result in banning.  But worry not, I'm a believer in the old saying, 'Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.'

It never ceases to amaze me how things can get twisted around. Someone tells me I should be teaching young boys and men (here is the actual quote from Meg)

You can teach young boys and men

and I point out that I have no access to educate young boys, and the people who do have that access, i.e. primary teachers, are apparently unable to change the boys behaviour, that, suddenly is translated into 

'I don't give a shit about the rape of women'.

Well, here's some news for you, I do care, but it's not me who's preventing women from coming forward. That they're doing on their own.

If I were the king of the world, I would eliminate the crime of rape and call it what it is, assault, with penalties concomitant with the level of brutality. I'm not sure what the outcome would be, but perhaps making it not about sex, but about violence would dispel some of the stigma associated with it.

As far as sexual harassment I've made it clear, on  more than one occasion, that I am a firm believer in maintaining professional demeanour on the job. How that translates into me not caring about sexual harassment is beyond me.

Now then, my level of privilege. My solution to that problem is to raise everyone's level of privilege. I try to accomplish that in my own small way by being respectful of others, by being respectful of those I come into contact with on a daily basis, and in so doing, trying to set an example for others (which is slightly educational after all). 

Rev...you've managed to make this thread about YOU.  Do you have any awareness at all of how stereotypically "man" this is of you?  

People here have tried to educate you, and again and again you've refused to listen.  Please TRY to listen, because you could be part of the change, you could use your privilege, the power being a man gives all of us(whether or not it should and it most likely shouldn't) to play a major role in the conversation, in the process of education that is desperately needed to get men to stop...being like too many of us are.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

You do not give a shit about the sexual harassment or rape of women.

​MegB wrote:

Sadly, I agree with your opinion. Men like Rev Pesky and Cody will never acknowledge the privilege they inhabit...

I'll begin by pointing out both the above are rank personal insults that should result in banning.  But worry not, I'm a believer in the old saying, 'Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.'

It never ceases to amaze me how things can get twisted around. Someone tells me I should be teaching young boys and men (here is the actual quote from Meg)

You can teach young boys and men

and I point out that I have no access to educate young boys, and the people who do have that access, i.e. primary teachers, are apparently unable to change the boys behaviour, that, suddenly is translated into 

'I don't give a shit about the rape of women'.

Well, here's some news for you, I do care, but it's not me who's preventing women from coming forward. That they're doing on their own.

If I were the king of the world, I would eliminate the crime of rape and call it what it is, assault, with penalties concomitant with the level of brutality. I'm not sure what the outcome would be, but perhaps making it not about sex, but about violence would dispel some of the stigma associated with it.

As far as sexual harassment I've made it clear, on  more than one occasion, that I am a firm believer in maintaining professional demeanour on the job. How that translates into me not caring about sexual harassment is beyond me.

Now then, my level of privilege. My solution to that problem is to raise everyone's level of privilege. I try to accomplish that in my own small way by being respectful of others, by being respectful of those I come into contact with on a daily basis, and in so doing, trying to set an example for others (which is slightly educational after all). 

Breathtaking. Not in a good way.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

From article Pondering posted:

"She tended to make leaps without sufficient evidence to do so and she linked evidence together without factual foundation.

Which is sort of interesting because it is a perfect description of Pondering's posts.

I have said this about Pondering's posts about politics in the more distant past - I don't feel this way now. But here it is a shocking thing to say since Pondering is one of a few women on this board and for a man to say this is a clear example of mansplaining given the topic and what you have said.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

MegB wrote:

my argument is compared to that of ultra right-wing Islamophobes...

For the sake of argument, let us say that your statement about men is not comparable. But where does 'not all men are rapists, but most rapists are men' lead us.

What is the point of such a statement?

Towards facts which is always a good place to start from when it comes to opinions.

Rev Pesky

Ken Burch wrote:

Rev...you've managed to make this thread about YOU. 

Nope. It was Pondering and MegB who made it about me. I am merely defending myself.

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

Breathtaking. Not in a good way.

That's an interesting statement, but as an argument it's a bit thin. Perhaps you'd like to flesh it out a little.

further from Sean in Ottawa:

Towards facts which is always a good place to start from when it comes to opinions.

As I pointed out, that is precisely the argument made by right-wingers about Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. However, lets leave that aside. What I was asking for was a 'where do we go from here?'

Reciting facts is wonderful, but it does not provide a road ahead. It's a bit like jerrym on another thread, wherein he recites the facts associated with increasing CO2 emmissions. Okay, let's say we all agree that those facts are true. Now what?

And that's where the conversation suddenly lurches into accusations of 'don't care about rape', or 'don't care about climate', or what have you.

I will grant that MegB listed some things in terms of what should be done, but as I pointed out, I am not in a position to do much along those lines. Interestingly enough, I am not the only person who finds the 'all men are not rapists' argument a bad one. When I google that phrase, I am returned many links to women who said things like,

Suzannah Weiss: ...But too often, the phrase "not all men" is used to invalidate women's claims about gender inequality or make men feel less uncomfortable about their privilege.

Jess Zimmerman: Before its meteoric rise as an object of mockery in the early parts of 2014, “not all men” had a past life as an object of frustration. For feminist bloggers it was a classic derail, a bad-faith argument used to shift the focus of a discussion instead of engaging with it.

Now, while the above writers may not have the same take on the phrase as I do, they don't believe the argument gets us anywhere either.

So the question is, what does get us somewhere?

 

Sean in Ottawa

A couple women here have answered this. Is it that you cannot listen to a woman putting it clearly to you? Maybe you could spend more time thinking about what they said instead of on your retort. There is no lack of information for you in this thread.

 

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

A couple women here have answered this. Is it that you cannot listen to a woman putting it clearly to you? Maybe you could spend more time thinking about what they said instead of on your retort. There is no lack of information for you in this thread.

Nope. Nobody has addressed or even acknowledged Rev's point. They saw that he was challenging the way things are done and they immediately assumed he was doing that for nefarious reasons. It wasn't enough to say he was wrong, no - he's wrong and a rape apologist.

For me, watching the rise of the alt-right is like watching a train wreck about to happen at 1 frame per second. Many on the left seem completely ignorant of the alienating nature of their rhetoric - until they fall prey to it, as Rev has here. The alt right isn't rising because of the policy positions of the right, and they certainly aren't rising because of a backslide in social values, they are rising because of the toxic and vitrolic attacks the left makes on even their own allies when they step on the wrong side of any issue - even when it happens unintentionally, from a benign place, or the "correct" side isn't obvious. And before you deny this - ask yourself, how many positive and well-meaning activists have you seen leave this forum over the years when they got on the wrong side of a group more oppressed than them for one issue or another, and just got railroaded out of town by the mob?

I'm reminded of the case of August Ames, a Canadian sex worker (porn star) who refused to work with a particular other (male) porn star who had previously done gay shoots, citing concern for her safety as a result of different protection practices for gay porn. LGBT activists on Twitter were furious. How dare she refuse to sleep with this guy? She was bullied and shamed for days, received a ton of threats and hate mail, and ended up committing suicide within 72 hours of revealing on Twitter why she wasn't working with the guy in question.

So LGBT activists bully a bisexual porn star to death because she tried to exercise her basic right to choose who she has sex with. How can the alt-right not grow when the left - in this case sex positive feminists and LGBT activists - tears itself apart in such a way?

And for all the disagreements I've had with Rev Pesky in the past, I think the way the rest of you are treating him here is disgusting. I probably agree with less than half of what he's said here (and certainly less than half of what he says in general), but I do agree with the major points - not that my opinions matter, I'm just a guy. In any case, it's classic leftism that has turned a genuine and well-intentioned critique of a sloppy argument that could have been improved into a pathetic dogpile where the intentions of Rev Pesky don't matter, all that matters is the fact that he has the wrong gender and is arguing with someone who has the right gender, and therefore he must not only be wrong but also have bad intentions. Rev, didn't you know the only way to do things is the way they've always been done? Feminism is already perfect and cannot be improved, especially by a man. You can't make things better. You should just do what progressive men are supposed to do and "repent, abase yourself, and be an obedient feminist ally."

 

As for the context of the discussion, Rev Pesky pointing out the supposed similarity between Meg's rhetoric towards men and that of Trump towards Muslims, he's not the first. This clip is possibly relevant: https://youtu.be/0C-ryuPII08?t=1m53s

Just so we're clear - Meg didn't rip off a racist right wing argument. The right wing ripped off the sexist left wing one. Or whatever you call gender based hate against the gender that can't be the victim of sexism (I wonder here, as always when this comes up - isn't that sexist?). The right wing argument is definitely racist though...isn't it convenient how they're always the bad ones, and the left is always virtuous?

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

A couple women here have answered this. Is it that you cannot listen to a woman putting it clearly to you? Maybe you could spend more time thinking about what they said instead of on your retort. There is no lack of information for you in this thread.

Nope. Nobody has addressed or even acknowledged Rev's point. They saw that he was challenging the way things are done and they immediately assumed he was doing that for nefarious reasons. It wasn't enough to say he was wrong, no - he's wrong and a rape apologist.

For me, watching the rise of the alt-right is like watching a train wreck about to happen at 1 frame per second. Many on the left seem completely ignorant of the alienating nature of their rhetoric - until they fall prey to it, as Rev has here. The alt right isn't rising because of the policy positions of the right, and they certainly aren't rising because of a backslide in social values, they are rising because of the toxic and vitrolic attacks the left makes on even their own allies when they step on the wrong side of any issue - even when it happens unintentionally, from a benign place, or the "correct" side isn't obvious. And before you deny this - ask yourself, how many positive and well-meaning activists have you seen leave this forum over the years when they got on the wrong side of a group more oppressed than them for one issue or another, and just got railroaded out of town by the mob?

I'm reminded of the case of August Ames, a Canadian sex worker (porn star) who refused to work with a particular other (male) porn star who had previously done gay shoots, citing concern for her safety as a result of different protection practices for gay porn. LGBT activists on Twitter were furious. How dare she refuse to sleep with this guy? She was bullied and shamed for days, received a ton of threats and hate mail, and ended up committing suicide within 72 hours of revealing on Twitter why she wasn't working with the guy in question.

So LGBT activists bully a bisexual porn star to death because she tried to exercise her basic right to choose who she has sex with. How can the alt-right not grow when the left - in this case sex positive feminists and LGBT activists - tears itself apart in such a way?

And for all the disagreements I've had with Rev Pesky in the past, I think the way the rest of you are treating him here is disgusting. I probably agree with less than half of what he's said here (and certainly less than half of what he says in general), but I do agree with the major points - not that my opinions matter, I'm just a guy. In any case, it's classic leftism that has turned a genuine and well-intentioned critique of a sloppy argument that could have been improved into a pathetic dogpile where the intentions of Rev Pesky don't matter, all that matters is the fact that he has the wrong gender and is arguing with someone who has the right gender, and therefore he must not only be wrong but also have bad intentions. Rev, didn't you know the only way to do things is the way they've always been done? Feminism is already perfect and cannot be improved, especially by a man. You can't make things better. You should just do what progressive men are supposed to do and "repent, abase yourself, and be an obedient feminist ally."

 

As for the context of the discussion, Rev Pesky pointing out the supposed similarity between Meg's rhetoric towards men and that of Trump towards Muslims, he's not the first. This clip is possibly relevant: https://youtu.be/0C-ryuPII08?t=1m53s

Just so we're clear - Meg didn't rip off a racist right wing argument. The right wing ripped off the sexist left wing one. Or whatever you call gender based hate against the gender that can't be the victim of sexism (I wonder here, as always when this comes up - isn't that sexist?). The right wing argument is definitely racist though...isn't it convenient how they're always the bad ones, and the left is always virtuous?

I won't unpack all that is wrong with this post but at least let's examine the comparison between the Muslim terrorist argument and violence agaisnt women.

The very suggestion that they can be compared is racist support for the false argument that Muslims are the source for most violence in North America. The fact is men are responsible for  most violence agaisnt women. This is not an opinion it remains an objective fact.

The Muslim faith being the primary source of violence is false.

Men being the primary source of sexual aggression against women is a fact.

Your denial of the difference is shocking.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I won't unpack all that is wrong with this post but at least let's examine the comparison between the Muslim terrorist argument and violence agaisnt women.

The very suggestion that they can be compared is racist support for the false argument that Muslims are the source for most violence in North America.

Nobody is saying that. Muslims are less than 2% of the North American population. Of course they aren't the source of most violence in North America.

Quote:
The fact is men are responsible for  most violence agaisnt women. This is not an opinion it remains an objective fact.

Nobody is disputing that fact either. Since we're stating the obvious, men are also responsible for the most violence against men, by the way.

Quote:
The Muslim faith being the primary source of violence is false.

Who here has said otherwise?

Quote:
Men being the primary source of sexual aggression against women is a fact.

Who else would be the primary source of sexual aggression against women? Other women? Non-binary individuals? That's a statment that's so obvious it's meaningless. Men will always be the primary source of sexual aggressivon against women because there's no other group to compare them to. There could be one rape a year per billion people and men would still be the primary source of sexual aggression against women.

Quote:
Your denial of the difference is shocking.

I'm not denying anything. Nobody is denying those facts. The only thing that was said was that Meg used an anti-male argument similar to the anti-Muslim argument the right uses. Obviously men are a privileged group and Muslims in North America are not. But also, Muslims are a tiny minority whereas men are half the population. From those vantage points, there is no comparison. But I don't understand why you or Meg or anyone couldn't have just said that in the beginning instead of getting into a toxic pissing contest with your own allies. Like usual.

Pondering

Thank-you Sean. I think some of us just can't deal with the mansplaining.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I won't unpack all that is wrong with this post but at least let's examine the comparison between the Muslim terrorist argument and violence agaisnt women.

The very suggestion that they can be compared is racist support for the false argument that Muslims are the source for most violence in North America.

Nobody is saying that. Muslims are less than 2% of the North American population. Of course they aren't the source of most violence in North America.

Quote:
The fact is men are responsible for  most violence agaisnt women. This is not an opinion it remains an objective fact.

Nobody is disputing that fact either. Since we're stating the obvious, men are also responsible for the most violence against men, by the way.

Quote:
The Muslim faith being the primary source of violence is false.

Who here has said otherwise?

Quote:
Men being the primary source of sexual aggression against women is a fact.

Who else would be the primary source of sexual aggression against women? Other women? Non-binary individuals? That's a statment that's so obvious it's meaningless. Men will always be the primary source of sexual aggressivon against women because there's no other group to compare them to. There could be one rape a year per billion people and men would still be the primary source of sexual aggression against women.

Quote:
Your denial of the difference is shocking.

I'm not denying anything. Nobody is denying those facts. The only thing that was said was that Meg used an anti-male argument similar to the anti-Muslim argument the right uses. Obviously men are a privileged group and Muslims in North America are not. But also, Muslims are a tiny minority whereas men are half the population. From those vantage points, there is no comparison. But I don't understand why you or Meg or anyone couldn't have just said that in the beginning instead of getting into a toxic pissing contest with your own allies. Like usual.

Anti-male violence and harassment is not anti male. I don't know why you equate the two. There is no sense of hostility to men from the women who are here.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Thank-you Sean. I think some of us just can't deal with the mansplaining.

It is sad to see what has been going on in this thread. You have been very patient.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Criminal harassment can get you up to 10 years. Maybe it should be explained to some guys in these terms.

MegB

I'd just like to reiterate that pointing out facts about male violence is not sexist. Calling a woman sexist for pointing out those facts is.

6079_Smith_W

As an aside on the wider issue, this is just one of numerous threads that gets hijacked by this reactionary, and essentially dishonest crap. Personally, there are things I simply no longer post here because I know it will just be a troll magnet, and there is zero chance of any real discussion, even among divergent viewpoints.

Kudos to those who feel like challenging it in the moment, but given that the end result is a lot of spent energy with no movement of the discussion, and these attitudes still enjoying centre stage, not feeding it is also a valid approach.

It might be different if any of this was changing attitudes. For the most part I don't see it happening.

/drift

6079_Smith_W

 

Maybe this will help:

Paladin1

Cody87 wrote:

I'm reminded of the case of August Ames, a Canadian sex worker (porn star) who refused to work with a particular other (male) porn star who had previously done gay shoots, citing concern for her safety as a result of different protection practices for gay porn. LGBT activists on Twitter were furious. How dare she refuse to sleep with this guy? She was bullied and shamed for days, received a ton of threats and hate mail, and ended up committing suicide within 72 hours of revealing on Twitter why she wasn't working with the guy in question.

So LGBT activists bully a bisexual porn star to death because she tried to exercise her basic right to choose who she has sex with. How can the alt-right not grow when the left - in this case sex positive feminists and LGBT activists - tears itself apart in such a way?

 

Very good (and sad) example. I remember that case and a couple other similar ones. While I think both right and left are guilty of this behavior I think the left is considerably more vicious when someone 'strays from the path'. How quickly the righteous of us turn to murder and suicide as a means to atone for insult.

Pondering

https://sapac.umich.edu/article/196

This is the knowledge I and every other women lives with every day.

One out of three college-aged men reported some likelihood to rape if they were assured they would not be caught (p.2689)

One in three men here would rape if they could get away with it; one in three men I work with one in three men that I pass on the street.

How would you feel about women if one in three would knife you, or steal from you, if she thought she wouldn't get caught.

Example: Ted Bundy was an A student, volunteered for his university’s suicide prevention center, and was active in the church. Does this sound like someone who would ‘fit the profile’ of a violent person?

We can't tell which men are likely to attack us and if we want to work we can't avoid men. If we are in politics we can't make rules like never be alone with a man. The fact that it would really be a good idea should horrify men. At least the 2/3rds that wouldn't rape us even if they wouldn't get caught.

Individual factors that have been found to lead to increased rape proclivity among men include (p. 2691)

  • Rape myth acceptance
  • High sexual arousal to rape depiction or sexual violence
  • Pornography consumption
  • Desire to have power over women
  • Increased levels of hostile sexism
  • Increased gender stereotyped attitudes toward women
  • When men are taught to be dominant and aggressive, this often leads to hyper-masculinity, male peer support for sexual aggression, development of rape myths, and adversarial sexual beliefs (Kilmartin, 2000; Rozee & Koss, 2001). In his classic study of college date rapists, Kanin’s sample (Kanin, 1985) were significantly more sexually active, but also more sexually frustrated than controls, and believed that rape could be justified under certainconditions.
  • Although the association between rape and pornography remains controversial, a number of studies have linked violent pornography and sexual arousal to rape depictions, violent sexual fantasies, rape callousness, and woman abuse (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998; Malamuth, 1984; Malamuth & Check, 1983).

No mention at all of elementary school teachers. That some extremists on the left hounded a porn star for refusing to have sex with a gay person has nothing at all to do with the Me Too movement.

That one third of the men posting on this board would happily rape a woman if he could get away with it is what causes a division between men and women.

One in three men would rape if they could get away with it. What percentage would merely harass women for sex? One in two men?

Women constantly face micro, small, medium, horrible and horrendous aggression sexual and otherwise every single day even in public.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/wjjej9/men-keep-harassing-on-air-fema...

 

You know what you could do men? You could stop consuming porn in solidarity with the majority of women instead of defending porn as a woman's right to work.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/31/men-victorians-wom...

It’s no wonder society has a problem with consent – it starts in bars, and clubs, in apparently innocent meetings where men just won’t take no for an answer. This isn’t a case of flirty persistence but an absolute demand to have the attention and energy of women. If a man can’t pick up social signals in a bar, what hope is there for the bedroom? I shared the Oslo incident on Twitter and had so many other women tell me their stories. One said that after explaining she was married a persistent man had said: “Why the hell are you out then? If you don’t want men to talk to you.” Her attention was his divine right.

Men pick up social signals just fine. They just  don't  care.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/wjjej9/men-keep-harassing-on-air-fema...

The "fuck her right in the pussy" trend taught the public what many women in media already knew: Some men think it's funny to harass women who are just trying to do their jobs.

As seen with a "fuck her right in the pussy" copycat incident that led to an Ontario man losing his job (he later got it back), men who harass women reporters on camera sometimes face repercussions.

Yeah, sometimes, rarely, even when it is on film, because  women are expected to be sympathetic and understand these men just don't know any better, or can't control themselves because we are just so darn tempting.

So yes I am outraged when responsibility for male behavior is thrown on women because  we are the majority of elementary school teachers, as if men just haven't been taught not to harass women. Moms and teachers  just forgot.

I am outraged when 3 women step forward to say they were harassed and men think believing the investigator without proof or the details is unfair to the man. It's like police violence; if we don't have a video it didn't happen. If it did happen, men just need training. They just didn't know any better.

Buy a clue. Women do not step forward and accuse men of harassment for complimenting them on their appearance or asking for a date. Those men need not fear.

Paladin1

Out of the 16 or so (I'm guessing) male contributors in this thread 5 rabble members here would rape women if they could get away with it. Lots of would-be rapists.

 

 

Pondering I'm not sure if you're comfortable with this question (and answering) or not but what are your views about women who don't report sexually inappropriate behavior in males?

I don't mean women who are assaulted and choose not to self-identity but I mean like in the case of Hollywood and all the female actors who knew or ought to have known this stuff was happening but turned a blind eye to it?

My questiuon isn't to shift any sort of blame from males to females but rather try and figure out my own views on it.

I think males are obgligated to say and do something if they witness it, being silent contributes to the problem. Do you think women too are or should be obgligated to say/do something?

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
 Out of the 16 or so (I'm guessing) male contributors in this thread 5 rabble members here would rape women if they could get away with it. Lots of would-be rapists. 

I like to think that talk is cheap so that in reality they wouldn't actually do it. They are asked hypothetically after all. The  survey probably added up "maybe,somewhat likely to and would" into one lump. It's a college survey so asking at a particular point in the lifetime of a man. Older or younger men might answer differently. Notice how I am bending over backwards to not condemn men?

I like to think that no man here would sexually harass nevermind rape a woman. Women can't, and yet we must, walk through life thinking of every man as a potential threat. There is a disconnect. It's difficult to think of kindly uncles, grandfathers, fathers, brothers, cousins, friends, as potential attackers if not of us, of other women.

Paladin1 wrote:
 Pondering I'm not sure if you're comfortable with this question (and answering) or not but what are your views about women who don't report sexually inappropriate behavior in males? 

They are afraid they won't be believed and that their lives will be turned upside down. They will be embarrassed, shamed for whatever part they played in the event.

Paladin1 wrote:
 I don't mean women who are assaulted and choose not to self-identity but I mean like in the case of Hollywood and all the female actors who knew or ought to have known this stuff was happening but turned a blind eye to it? 

It's always on the grapevine. Universities stopped sending female interns to Ghomeshi's show. Notice how that held back women's careers? Christine Moore was impulsive in the manner she reported grapevine information both times. Even so she has been attacked more than the men she was reporting on. The fact that the investigators found fire where their was smoke seems immaterial to some.

Paladin1 wrote:
  I think males are obgligated to say and do something if they witness it, being silent contributes to the problem. Do you think women too are or should be obgligated to say/do something?

No, and I recognize the quandry men are in if they haven't witnessed anything but have just been informed. Men should respect the wishes of the victim. I don't blame men for wanting to believe the men that are their friends and relatives and co-workers especially when they are really nice men that volunteer in the community etc. Women want to believe them too. It's why it comes as such a deep betrayal. It tells us we can't tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. It can make us distrustful of all men because we can't trust ourselves to know which is which.

Women cannot be forced to report their own victimization. I don't think that is the case for any crime. Reporting comes with such serious reprocussions for women that few women do it. To force them to would be to revictimize.

For now I think the best avenue is to have a structured means for women to put through complaints anonymously and unofficially. If complaints start to pile up against one man the complainants would be told of each other's existence and asked if they are willing to make their complaints official while maintaining anonymity. Only then would their be an investigation. Reporting could go through a rape crisis centre or an organization set up for something similar like crimestoppers.

We know  that it's he said she said and that is difficult if not impossible to prove. Some men have been falsely accused but they are few and far between and I think easily debunked. I still understand giving the benefit of the doubt to the man. When it is he said, she said, she said, she said I am frustrated by the great lengths taken to defend the man and malign the women.

That is why women do not step forward. So when men throw up their hands and say "but what can we do?" You can believe women. Even if only one in 10 men would rape, there are plenty more who will pressure and be aggressive to the point of sexual harassment. It infuriates me that all Erin Weir has to say is that he only "stood a little too close and talked a little too long" and his words are accepted as gospel and he is diagnosed from afar with autism even though he never claimed any such thing. His every excuse is swallowed whole without any critical thinking applied. We supposedly have to know the specific details to judge.

I think if anyone witnesses they should report but I understand why they don't. I don't even know if I would. I think it is very situationally dependent. When it is reported, the first tendency should be to believe women unless there is some reason not to because there are few motives strong enough to propel a woman to make false claims against a man. When multiple complaints pile up against a man and an investigator confirms them as valid don't bend over backwards to excuse the man. I'm not saying condemn him to prison for sexual harassment. But maybe say he isn't doing himself any favors by trying to minimize his actions.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Of course, men have to stop watching porn, and doing the other things Pondering suggests. The problem with exploring the psychopathology of these wankers is that it might infect an innocent person.

Maybe society could work out rules of engagement between women and unknown men, where women will feel safe. If people are crossing those boundaries, it would be advance warning.

On dating sites, they generally recommend meetings in brightly-lit public places like a coffee shop. 

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

You are repeatedly condescending towards me. That isn't respectful particularly in a thread with "Me Too" in the title.

​The thread title is important, because...?

further from same:

Because you put no more significance on it than someone picking their nose and you say "people" not "men" who are the primary perpetrators of sexual harassment.

Okay, I officially apologize for calling people 'people'. However, I will not apologize for believing people (oh damn - that word again) er, uh, humans, should maintain a professional demeanour at work. I not only believe it, I believe it's important. You don't. That's okay by me.

further from same:

In any case Pesky, your position is transparent.

It sure should be in that I've reiterated it several times. One, sexual assault is a crime that should be punished. Two, non-professional behaviour is  bad in the workplace, and should be dealt with by a process that makes it known that continued non-observance will result in firing.

Here's something else you can think on. All of the things that are currently being done are not working. By your own evidence it is clear they're not working. Pardon me for saying so, but at some point it might pay to examine the possibility of using other means to obtain the desired end.

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Martin Luther King. More or less, the law is correctly oriented. Society has to catch up with the intent of the law.

Pondering

The thread topic is important because of the frequency of male sexual misconduct against women. This is a crime in which women are the victims and men should be sensitive to that fact.

Rev Pesky wrote:
Okay, I officially apologize for calling people 'people'. However, I will not apologize for believing people (oh damn - that word again) er, uh, humans, should maintain a professional demeanour at work. I not only believe it, I believe it's important. You don't. That's okay by me. 

I never said anything  against keeping a professional demeanour at work. Playing your little "superior intellectual" game doesn't make you smart it makes you an asshole. Yes I called you a name because you are insulting me and I don't play silly games trying to pretend I'm being polite when my intent is to offend.

Rev Pesky wrote:
It sure should be in that I've reiterated it several times. One, sexual assault is a crime that should be punished. Two, non-professional behaviour is  bad in the workplace, and should be dealt with by a process that makes it known that continued non-observance will result in firing. 

But you fail to recognize that this is a male crime against women by generalizing it as merely non-professional behavior. It isn't only in business it has to stop. It has to stop everywhere. 

Rev Pesky wrote:
Here's something else you can think on. All of the things that are currently being done are not working. By your own evidence it is clear they're not working. Pardon me for saying so, but at some point it might pay to examine the possibility of using other means to obtain the desired end. 

We have found another means. Investigation of men with multiple complaints against them and dismissal when complaints are found to be valid. It's going to take time but it's working. Me Too has brought down a lot of men and scared many more.

 

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

Of course, men have to stop watching porn, and doing the other things Pondering suggests. The problem with exploring the psychopathology of these wankers is that it might infect an innocent person.

Maybe society could work out rules of engagement between women and unknown men, where women will feel safe. If people are crossing those boundaries, it would be advance warning.

On dating sites, they generally recommend meetings in brightly-lit public places like a coffee shop.

Meeting  strangers isn't the problem. The problem is  men women meet at work. Their boyfriend's friend or father or uncle, their friend's husband. Men at bars. Male coaches and teachers.

Creepy uncles have been tolerated as "part of the family", something women just have to put up with, stay out of Harry's way when he is drinking because he likes to cop a feel. Harry needs to be told to cut it out or he is no longer welcome.

It's like drunken driving. It has to become unacceptable for men to harass women even if we are walking down the street naked.

I don't understand what you mean by infecting an "innocent person". I don't see the risk.

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

It's going to take time but it's working. Me Too has brought down a lot of men and scared many more.

What's the goal again?

Okay, that was a cheap shot, I know you mean predators.

But, seriously then, Me Too has brought down a lot of predators, like Patrick Brown for example...

Pondering

Cody87 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's going to take time but it's working. Me Too has brought down a lot of men and scared many more.

What's the goal again?

Okay, that was a cheap shot, I know you mean predators.

But, seriously then, Me Too has brought down a lot of predators, like Patrick Brown for example...

I don't know if Brown is a "predator" or not. I do believe he behaved inappropriately and handled the situation poorly. He isn't in jail. Last I heard he wrote a book. He just isn't leader of the PCs anymore. That is, or should be, a position of privilege for people of the highest moral character.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That is, or should be, a position of privilege for people of the highest moral character.

And do you feel he is inadequate for that position because he behaved "inappropriately"?  Or because he handled his situation poorly?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
That is, or should be, a position of privilege for people of the highest moral character.

And do you feel he is inadequate for that position because he behaved "inappropriately"?  Or because he handled his situation poorly?

A bit of both with a dash of "life's not fair", try being a woman.

Here are a few things you should know about me.  I do not have a "cheerleader" personality. I chose to pursue legal education so I could do my part in curbing discrimination, after working as a law clerk at a human rights firm. I approach the law respectfully and seriously. I am a careful and conscientious researcher. 

My mooting partner and I finished our arguments, and after a short break, eagerly returned to the room to receive feedback from our judges, two of whom were male. After praising my partner, who had legitimately done an incredible job, the first of these two judges informed me that "a smile would be nice" and told me I "looked bored". The second agreed, even going so far as to state that it was a shame I didn't smile more, because it was clear that I was knowledgeable and competent in my legal arguments. No one mentioned what my partner did with his face. He was only showered with praise.

I was stunned.

I felt helpless and hopeless. And angry.

I had traveled over 5,000 kilometres to one of the world's most prestigious universities only to be critiqued on my appearance and lack of perceived "enthusiasm".  But I knew the problem went far beyond the moot court competition. I had heard these statements before. In fact, I heard them more than once from male practice judges when I was preparing for this competition. The tenacity of my legal arguments, the sheer amount of research and thought and preparation, seemed inconsequential. I just really needed to smile more.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-june-3-2018-...

But if she smiles more and a judge gets the wrong idea it will be her fault because men are so confused. They just can't figure out what we want. We are such a mystery.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
A bit of both with a dash of "life's not fair", try being a woman.

If that doesn't "woke" me, should I try being black?

I remain curious what you genuinely believe Brown did that was inconsistent with having moral character.

The rest of your post is grist for a different thread, unless you feel it has something specific to do with the #MeToo movement.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Pondering wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Of course, men have to stop watching porn, and doing the other things Pondering suggests. The problem with exploring the psychopathology of these wankers is that it might infect an innocent person.

Maybe society could work out rules of engagement between women and unknown men, where women will feel safe. If people are crossing those boundaries, it would be advance warning.

On dating sites, they generally recommend meetings in brightly-lit public places like a coffee shop.

Meeting  strangers isn't the problem. The problem is  men women meet at work. Their boyfriend's friend or father or uncle, their friend's husband. Men at bars. Male coaches and teachers.

Creepy uncles have been tolerated as "part of the family", something women just have to put up with, stay out of Harry's way when he is drinking because he likes to cop a feel. Harry needs to be told to cut it out or he is no longer welcome.

It's like drunken driving. It has to become unacceptable for men to harass women even if we are walking down the street naked.

I don't understand what you mean by infecting an "innocent person". I don't see the risk.

Images a brain can form after reading something can be very disturbing. Some guys who are "on the fence" might get pulled further down into this depraved wickedness. Dealing with the criminal psychopathology of incestuous pieces of crap such as you have mentioned is not a pursuit which should be taken lightly. I would not have the stomach for it. I am afraid some people might have some sympathy because of their abuse as a child, etc., which would be counter-productive.

We have to protect our peace of mind as much as possible, or we will be no good at fighting for change.

I was abused quite a lot, but when I escaped I decided there was absolutely no way I was going to be like that. Some people do not think about that, and psychopaths actually enjoy abusing people. They just carry on the behaviour through generations. 

These people are criminals. The sooner society starts recognizing this and starts prosecuting them as so, the safer it will be.

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's going to take time but it's working. Me Too has brought down a lot of men and scared many more.

What's the goal again?

Okay, that was a cheap shot, I know you mean predators.

But, seriously then, Me Too has brought down a lot of predators, like Patrick Brown for example...

I don't know if Brown is a "predator" or not. I do believe he behaved inappropriately and handled the situation poorly. He isn't in jail. Last I heard he wrote a book. He just isn't leader of the PCs anymore. That is, or should be, a position of privilege for people of the highest moral character.

I'm just salty because Doug Ford is so much worse.

Pondering

Cody87 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's going to take time but it's working. Me Too has brought down a lot of men and scared many more.

What's the goal again?

Okay, that was a cheap shot, I know you mean predators.

But, seriously then, Me Too has brought down a lot of predators, like Patrick Brown for example...

I don't know if Brown is a "predator" or not. I do believe he behaved inappropriately and handled the situation poorly. He isn't in jail. Last I heard he wrote a book. He just isn't leader of the PCs anymore. That is, or should be, a position of privilege for people of the highest moral character.

I'm just salty because Doug Ford is so much worse.

Granted you have a point there.

Rev Pesky

MegB wrote:

I'd just like to reiterate that pointing out facts about male violence is not sexist. Calling a woman sexist for pointing out those facts is.

And if I had done that, you'd have a point. In that I didn't, you don't, at least not with me.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

This is the knowledge I and every other women lives with every day.

One out of three college-aged men reported some likelihood to rape if they were assured they would not be caught (p.2689)

One in three men here would rape if they could get away with it; one in three men I work with one in three men that I pass on the street.

How would you feel about women if one in three would knife you, or steal from you, if she thought she wouldn't get caught.

...That one third of the men posting on this board would happily rape a woman if he could get away with it is what causes a division between men and women.

This is the sort of nonsense I was talking about. From a very tenuous statistic - one out of three college men reported some likelihood - to - one of three men would - to - one third of the men posting on this board would - and all within a couple of paragraphs.

Why is the underlying statistic tenuous?  Because we don't know what 'some likelihood' means. But even if it meant 'would' instead of 'some likelihood', you still can't stretch that to the final statement. For one thing, I suspect most of the men posting on this board are not college students. 

Sean in Ottawa

Why are people here trying to decide Brown's guilt when most of the facts are private. Is it not enough that his closest supporters rejected him for this?

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:
Why is the underlying statistic tenuous?  Because we don't know what 'some likelihood' means. But even if it meant 'would' instead of 'some likelihood', you still can't stretch that to the final statement. For one thing, I suspect most of the men posting on this board are not college students.

I later posted this:

Pondering wrote:
I like to think that talk is cheap so that in reality they wouldn't actually do it. They are asked hypothetically after all. The  survey probably added up "maybe,somewhat likely to and would" into one lump. It's a college survey so asking at a particular point in the lifetime of a man. Older or younger men might answer differently. Notice how I am bending over backwards to not condemn men?

I like to think that no man here would sexually harass nevermind rape a woman. Women can't, and yet we must, walk through life thinking of every man as a potential threat. There is a disconnect. It's difficult to think of kindly uncles, grandfathers, fathers, brothers, cousins, friends, as potential attackers if not of us, of other women.

One in three, One in ten, doesn't matter when you look at the statistics on the number of women impacted. It still means we walk through life knowing that there is really no way to tell the good guys from the bad guys and tolerating abuse because he said she said makes it difficult for courts to take action. Women get that. When it turns into he said she she she she said we expect credibility and numbers to make a difference, particularly outside of a courtroom.

So even if the number is closer to one in ten, that's high enough for the subconscious to keep an underlying awareness. Consciously we don't go around thinking every man is a danger but we try to stay generally aware. Date rape is more common than stranger rape. I think most men go out of their way not to invade women's personal space without some sign of interest from the woman. Most men don't get women drunk to impair their judgement. Most men do want enthusiastic consent not just to be tolerated.  Other men consider women fair game to be chased for sport. The woman's feelings before during and after are immaterial even if it isn't rape.

Paladin1

Thanks for your thoughtful response Pondering. Again as a parent of young girls (and boys) I have a lot vested in this (and appreciate your candor).

 

If you'll allow me to dissect your post just a little I'm finding some inconsistency which maybe you can enlighten me about.

In your post #122, in response to me pointing out how many would-be rapists there are posting in this thread you pointed out

" It's a college survey so asking at a particular point in the lifetime of a man. Older or younger men might answer differently".

Followed by"I like to think that no man here would sexually harass nevermind rape a woman."

Okay. But your comments in post #120 seem to indicate (at least to me) that you're speaking to all men in general.

Quote:
This is the knowledge I and every other women lives with every day.

One in three men here would rape if they could get away with it; one in three men I work with one in three men that I pass on the street.

Would that mean you live in a college neighbourhood and/ work with men attending college?

and

Quote:
We can't tell which men are likely to attack us and if we want to work we can't avoid men. If we are in politics we can't make rules like never be alone with a man. The fact that it would really be a good idea should horrify men. At least the 2/3rds that wouldn't rape us even if they wouldn't get caught.

Quote:
That one third of the men posting on this board would happily rape a woman if he could get away with it is what causes a division between men and women.

I feel this statement is kind of hard to imply you meant just college aged guys but I'm quite open to it being explained that I'm taking this statement out of context.

 

Some other points.

Quote:
You know what you could do men? You could stop consuming porn in solidarity with the majority of women instead of defending porn as a woman's right to work.

Are we saying porn is wrong and an industry that needs to be shut down? Isn't porn an industry where women get paid considerably more money for the same work than men?

Quote:
I am outraged when 3 women step forward to say they were harassed and men think believing the investigator without proof or the details is unfair to the man. It's like police violence; if we don't have a video it didn't happen. If it did happen, men just need training. They just didn't know any better.

Earlier I spoke about false alligations against men being a risk we ought to take if it means more women are empowered to come forward but at the same time proof is proof and we shouldn't believe every women coming forward simply due to the fact she's a woman. I believe Lena Dunham made that claim then quickly came under fire when a male friend of hers was accused of rape and Lena automatically defended him. I believe she accused the woman of lying?

I'm not sure how to fix the problem but I think it's going to take a society-level shift. Maybe going back to porn moving away from a sex-obsessed society would be a start? Kids are exposed to and bombarded with sexual images from a very early age. Even playing a video game with my daughter the female characters body armor is sexual in nature.

 

 

Maybe movie and videogame sexualization have a part to play?

SocialJustice101

Have you ever taken your kids to a beach or a swimming pool?   How is that any different?

SocialJustice101

Ironically, sexual harassment is due to lack of proper sex-ed for previous generations.   Teens were not informed about proper consent, sexual comments, groping etc.   It's an educational gap.    But I guess the Ford Nation doesn't want to know these things.

Paladin1

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Have you ever taken your kids to a beach or a swimming pool?   How is that any different?

 

Huge difference between bathing suits at a pool and beach and the overt sexualization in video games, movies and advertising.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Teens were not informed about proper consent, sexual comments, groping etc.

We were, however, fully informed about fallopian tubes.

I do, though, recall a day in Grade 6 when some other teacher -- not ours -- separated the boys from the girls in our class.  The girls, I'm given to believe, ended up in one of the "portables" learning about puberty and menstruation and their bodies and suchlike.  We boys went to the gym and played "crab soccer".  No joke.

jjuares

dp

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
 Would that mean you live in a college neighbourhood and/ work with men attending college?

That is the kind of snide comment that is unhelpful. What if you found out that 1 on 3 college aged women would consider knifing a man. Would you not find that disturbing? Would you not look at women differently?

Paladin1 wrote:
Are we saying porn is wrong and an industry that needs to be shut down? Isn't porn an industry where women get paid considerably more money for the same work than men? 

"We" aren't saying anything. I'm saying porn is harmful towards women and men too for that matter. It is twisting human sexuality. Some men find it desensitizing to the point where they don't enjoy real sex. That is not to suggest it should be illegal or that the industry should be shut down. It means individuals think about what they are consuming and how it impacts them and more importantly their children in this age of the internet. The porn industry is having a tough time because there is so much free stuff available. That can't be shut down. People have to decide for themselves what they want to consume.

As I noted in my last post the one in three statistic can't be generalized but as a woman I can't help but thinking that is the extreme. If it is even one in ten men, how many more would just sexually harass women, or be overly aggressive to get a woman to "give in". 

Paladin1 wrote:
 Earlier I spoke about false alligations against men being a risk we ought to take if it means more women are empowered to come forward but at the same time proof is proof and we shouldn't believe every women coming forward simply due to the fact she's a woman. I believe Lena Dunham made that claim then quickly came under fire when a male friend of hers was accused of rape and Lena automatically defended him. I believe she accused the woman of lying?

Yes she did come under fire. I think she apologized although I am not sure. What's your point?

Bill Cosby had a ton of defenders too and some of them were women.

Paladin1 wrote:
I'm not sure how to fix the problem but I think it's going to take a society-level shift. Maybe going back to porn moving away from a sex-obsessed society would be a start? Kids are exposed to and bombarded with sexual images from a very early age. Even playing a video game with my daughter the female characters body armor is sexual in nature. 

Yes it isn't just what we traditionally consider porn. Fashion advertising pushes the boundries. I used to wear spike heels but now I consider them a more benign version of foot wrapping. The craze for genital plastic surgery is concerning.

Parents magazines have been sounding the alarm on girls clothing for years. Things like little girls shorts being cut super short with boys shorts being more generous. This is at toddler stage and up.

What is your frame of mind entering this thread. Is it to try to identify with women or defend men? It's not all men, and it's not all cops, but when the good cops defend the bad cops it gets harder to tell them apart doesn't it?

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

I'm saying porn is harmful towards women and men too for that matter. It is twisting human sexuality.

Given that there is no definition of what constitutes 'porn', saying it is harmful is meaningless. In fact, are there any statistics that show that countries with more laissez-faire porn laws have more violence against women? I'm thinking of the Netherlands, say, which has an incidence of rape that is a third that of the USA.

In any case the only thing we know for sure about 'porn' is that what is porn for one person is not for another. Drawing a 'cause and effect' relationship between pornography and sexual violence is just not possible.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

That is the kind of snide comment that is unhelpful. What if you found out that 1 on 3 college aged women would consider knifing a man. Would you not find that disturbing? Would you not look at women differently?

I wasn't being snide Pondering. I like you and I enjoy (and learn from) your posts. I was trying to figure out whether you think 1 in 3 men on Rabble would rape a woman if they could get away with it or not. Initially you said "all men" then it switched to "college men" so I was asking if you worked on/in/near a college to quantify your previous comments about the 'men around you'.   I sure would begin to wonder what's going on if 1 out of 3 women admitted to wanting to stab men. My first step would be looking at whoever is conducting the research and the veracity of it.

Pondering wrote:

"We" aren't saying anything. I'm saying porn is harmful towards women and men too for that matter. It is twisting human sexuality. Some men find it desensitizing to the point where they don't enjoy real sex. That is not to suggest it should be illegal or that the industry should be shut down. It means individuals think about what they are consuming and how it impacts them and more importantly their children in this age of the internet. The porn industry is having a tough time because there is so much free stuff available. That can't be shut down. People have to decide for themselves what they want to consume.

Okay. I don't know enough about that stuff to offer an informed opinion. What you're saying sounds plausable.

Quote:
As I noted in my last post the one in three statistic can't be generalized but as a woman I can't help but thinking that is the extreme. If it is even one in ten men, how many more would just sexually harass women, or be overly aggressive to get a woman to "give in".

It's disgusting and needs to change. I think there is or can be a number of guilty contrinuting factors. Like when sports players are accused of various things and it gets swept under the rug. Or in Rehtaeh Parsons case the police doing a half ass job.

Pondering wrote:

Yes she did come under fire. I think she apologized although I am not sure. What's your point?

Simple. How quickly things seem to change when it's on a personal level. It's not just a black and white solution.

 

Pondering wrote:

Yes it isn't just what we traditionally consider porn. Fashion advertising pushes the boundries. I used to wear spike heels but now I consider them a more benign version of foot wrapping. The craze for genital plastic surgery is concerning.

Parents magazines have been sounding the alarm on girls clothing for years. Things like little girls shorts being cut super short with boys shorts being more generous. This is at toddler stage and up.

Agree with everything you're saying here.  Those Toddler and Tiara's shows are disgusting. But when there was an expose done on websites associated with those child beauty pagents they found alot of the subscribers were judges and powerful lawyers. To me that speaks volumes.

Pondering wrote:

What is your frame of mind entering this thread. Is it to try to identify with women or defend men? It's not all men, and it's not all cops, but when the good cops defend the bad cops it gets harder to tell them apart doesn't it?

 I wasn't posting with the specific intention of defending one group over the other. I answered previously that I didn't think it was creating a bigger devide (as per OP question) and that I think it's making it easier for women to come forward. As a parent I want my children to not only be able to tell me something happened but be able to do it openly without reprisals, suspicion and abuse.  A problem with social media is that EVERYONE has an opinion when something happens and can't wait to post what they think. 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I'm saying porn is harmful towards women and men too for that matter. It is twisting human sexuality.

Given that there is no definition of what constitutes 'porn', saying it is harmful is meaningless. In fact, are there any statistics that show that countries with more laissez-faire porn laws have more violence against women? I'm thinking of the Netherlands, say, which has an incidence of rape that is a third that of the USA.

In any case the only thing we know for sure about 'porn' is that what is porn for one person is not for another. Drawing a 'cause and effect' relationship between pornography and sexual violence is just not possible.

You could just use your common sense. That something isn't proven beyond the shadow of a doubt doesn't mean nothing can or should be done. There are plenty of men who admit that porn has shaped their expectations of what women should look like, for example, clean shaven. There are plenty of men who say that porn damaged their sexuality to the point that they could no longer enjoy sex with actual women in their lives. I suppose they could all be lying and the culprit is actually sugar.

As to, defining porn.

por·nog·ra·phy

pôrˈnäɡrəfē/

noun

noun: pornography

printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

synonyms:erotica, pornographic material, dirty books;

smut, filth, vice;

informal(hard/soft) porn, porno, girlie magazines, skin flicks

"an Internet site selling adult pornography"

Close enough for me.

When you start with the attitude that porn can't be defined you are playing semantics not discussing sexual misconduct and violence towards women.

It is my opinion from anecdotal evidence that porn, at least what we consume as porn now, has a negative impact on human sexuality. That does not mean it harms every single individual. It means it does some harm to some people. Many experts share that opinion. I think there is enough evidence without doing controlled studies to draw a cause and effect conclusion. You don't. That's fine. I'm not here to convince you otherwise. You are an adult. If you are that interested go do research.

You may also want to look into desensitization. I think there have been some scientific studies on that.

I am also not going to debate the existence of or definition of climate change.

6079_Smith_W

Whatever people think about porn (and it isn't just one thing), who is watching and what they are watching might come as a surprise to some.  The stats in this Swedish article are worth reading, as is the conclusion:

https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4323/3373

Then of course, there is this:

http://gawker.com/5420211/scientist-tries-to-find-man-who-has-never-watc...

And according to the study above, that goes for a large majority of women as well. 

Our ideas about the porn industry are also mythical, at least since the advent of the internet. Although there are still production companies, most of them aren't doing too well, given the amount content from small producers and for free. The international juggernaut of porn is Canada's Pornhub, which for the most part just takes it for free.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornhub

And who gets targetted? Usually not straight porn, but content that is more threatening, like what was done to Little Sisters in Vancouver, or fetlife (also Canadian), by squeezing their merchant accounts.

Anyway, if this is going to start drifting into ethical questions about porn, probably better to do it in another thread.

 

 

SocialJustice101

Pondering, that's a very surpising view from a progressive.  Do you have any science to back it up?

I think the easiest way for men to calm down their sex drive and behave like gentlemen is to watch pornography.   Men behave more like pigs if their urges are not satisfied.

Pages