FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Curfew for men?
Curfew for men?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oppose it and ask which deranged woman petitioned for it, and why the House of Lords passed it." Thatchers back? Not again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d start a riot! "This would be a good idea.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fascinating thread off Twitter: Ladies, a question for you: "What would you do if all men had a 9pm curfew?" Dudes: Read the replies and pay attention. " Most men on here ARE on a curfew Imposed by their wives | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d start a riot!
This would be a good idea. "What the riot? Or the curfew?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many women would be happy to take over the fire service positions?" Oh don't be silly, it's not about that.... It was very moving - a lot of women were simply describing how they would go running at night, or simply out on their own without looking over their shoulder...sit on the beach looking at the stars....sleep with their window open at night...use public transport without fear so they could sell their car..... What was most touching was some of the replies of the men - who had just never thought of all these things as a gender privilege. One guy actually said "Wow, I feel horrible right now. None of this has ever occurred to me as an issue. I run, I go do whatever I want whenever I want. Why aren't women filled with uncontrollable rage all the time?" I thought it was a pretty profound subject. A famous author apparently once said 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many women would be happy to take over the fire service positions? Oh don't be silly, it's not about that.... It was very moving - a lot of women were simply describing how they would go running at night, or simply out on their own without looking over their shoulder...sit on the beach looking at the stars....sleep with their window open at night...use public transport without fear so they could sell their car..... What was most touching was some of the replies of the men - who had just never thought of all these things as a gender privilege. One guy actually said "Wow, I feel horrible right now. None of this has ever occurred to me as an issue. I run, I go do whatever I want whenever I want. Why aren't women filled with uncontrollable rage all the time?" I thought it was a pretty profound subject. A famous author apparently once said 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them'" Ah now I get it. That’s actually quite interesting and makes sense to be honest. I don’t think some men realise though. That quote I’ve heard before, it’s spot on really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fascinating thread off Twitter: Ladies, a question for you: "What would you do if all men had a 9pm curfew?" Dudes: Read the replies and pay attention. Most men on here ARE on a curfew Imposed by their wives" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many women would be happy to take over the fire service positions? Oh don't be silly, it's not about that.... It was very moving - a lot of women were simply describing how they would go running at night, or simply out on their own without looking over their shoulder...sit on the beach looking at the stars....sleep with their window open at night...use public transport without fear so they could sell their car..... What was most touching was some of the replies of the men - who had just never thought of all these things as a gender privilege. One guy actually said "Wow, I feel horrible right now. None of this has ever occurred to me as an issue. I run, I go do whatever I want whenever I want. Why aren't women filled with uncontrollable rage all the time?" I thought it was a pretty profound subject. A famous author apparently once said 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them'"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not an original idea! Golda Meir was the Prime Minister of Israel from 1969 to 1973. When Golda Meir was asked to place a curfew on women to help end a series of r#pes, Meir replied by stating, “But it is the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home.” " It was probably inspired by someone reading her!? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many women would be happy to take over the fire service positions? Oh don't be silly, it's not about that.... It was very moving - a lot of women were simply describing how they would go running at night, or simply out on their own without looking over their shoulder...sit on the beach looking at the stars....sleep with their window open at night...use public transport without fear so they could sell their car..... What was most touching was some of the replies of the men - who had just never thought of all these things as a gender privilege. One guy actually said "Wow, I feel horrible right now. None of this has ever occurred to me as an issue. I run, I go do whatever I want whenever I want. Why aren't women filled with uncontrollable rage all the time?" I thought it was a pretty profound subject. A famous author apparently once said 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them'" This is the type of response I thought of when I read your OP. I don't feel unsafe walking about. But I am wary. I hate walking anywhere in the dark (or even after 7pm). Since moving here, I've felt safer, but I still have a chill up my spine. I would also like to say I was mugged (had my bag snatched) when I was 21 and living in Nottingham - so my fears aren't exactly unfounded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many women would be happy to take over the fire service positions? Oh don't be silly, it's not about that.... It was very moving - a lot of women were simply describing how they would go running at night, or simply out on their own without looking over their shoulder...sit on the beach looking at the stars....sleep with their window open at night...use public transport without fear so they could sell their car..... What was most touching was some of the replies of the men - who had just never thought of all these things as a gender privilege. One guy actually said "Wow, I feel horrible right now. None of this has ever occurred to me as an issue. I run, I go do whatever I want whenever I want. Why aren't women filled with uncontrollable rage all the time?" I thought it was a pretty profound subject. A famous author apparently once said 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them' Ah now I get it. That’s actually quite interesting and makes sense to be honest. I don’t think some men realise though. That quote I’ve heard before, it’s spot on really. " I agree, I think a lot of men have no idea. I’d like to read the report it does sound really interesting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many women would be happy to take over the fire service positions? Oh don't be silly, it's not about that.... It was very moving - a lot of women were simply describing how they would go running at night, or simply out on their own without looking over their shoulder...sit on the beach looking at the stars....sleep with their window open at night...use public transport without fear so they could sell their car..... What was most touching was some of the replies of the men - who had just never thought of all these things as a gender privilege. One guy actually said "Wow, I feel horrible right now. None of this has ever occurred to me as an issue. I run, I go do whatever I want whenever I want. Why aren't women filled with uncontrollable rage all the time?" I thought it was a pretty profound subject. A famous author apparently once said 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them' This is the type of response I thought of when I read your OP. I don't feel unsafe walking about. But I am wary. I hate walking anywhere in the dark (or even after 7pm). Since moving here, I've felt safer, but I still have a chill up my spine. I would also like to say I was mugged (had my bag snatched) when I was 21 and living in Nottingham - so my fears aren't exactly unfounded." I felt safe in the Cotswolds, but not in London. If I had to use public transport to go dancing, I simply wouldn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many women would be happy to take over the fire service positions? Oh don't be silly, it's not about that.... It was very moving - a lot of women were simply describing how they would go running at night, or simply out on their own without looking over their shoulder...sit on the beach looking at the stars....sleep with their window open at night...use public transport without fear so they could sell their car..... What was most touching was some of the replies of the men - who had just never thought of all these things as a gender privilege. One guy actually said "Wow, I feel horrible right now. None of this has ever occurred to me as an issue. I run, I go do whatever I want whenever I want. Why aren't women filled with uncontrollable rage all the time?" I thought it was a pretty profound subject. A famous author apparently once said 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them' This is the type of response I thought of when I read your OP. I don't feel unsafe walking about. But I am wary. I hate walking anywhere in the dark (or even after 7pm). Since moving here, I've felt safer, but I still have a chill up my spine. I would also like to say I was mugged (had my bag snatched) when I was 21 and living in Nottingham - so my fears aren't exactly unfounded. I felt safe in the Cotswolds, but not in London. If I had to use public transport to go dancing, I simply wouldn't." To be fair there’s a few places where I don’t feel safe from men or women. I hate it when it gets dark early and I have to walk home in it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many women would be happy to take over the fire service positions? Oh don't be silly, it's not about that.... It was very moving - a lot of women were simply describing how they would go running at night, or simply out on their own without looking over their shoulder...sit on the beach looking at the stars....sleep with their window open at night...use public transport without fear so they could sell their car..... What was most touching was some of the replies of the men - who had just never thought of all these things as a gender privilege. One guy actually said "Wow, I feel horrible right now. None of this has ever occurred to me as an issue. I run, I go do whatever I want whenever I want. Why aren't women filled with uncontrollable rage all the time?" I thought it was a pretty profound subject. A famous author apparently once said 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them' Ah now I get it. That’s actually quite interesting and makes sense to be honest. I don’t think some men realise though. That quote I’ve heard before, it’s spot on really. I agree, I think a lot of men have no idea. I’d like to read the report it does sound really interesting. " I don't think there is a report - it was a question asked on Twitter by a Civil Rights Activist with 88k followers, so it generated a lot of response and is one of Twitters top stories! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I sometimes work passed 9pm, who’s going to be doing my job, cause no woman can ?!" It's OK they could just lock you in...........but it's not a real suggestion hun, it's a hypothetical question used to reveal how women adjust their lives because of a fear of men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I (Mr) read this thread at work today, it certainly made me stop and think about the freedoms I take for granted. I totally appreciate it's a hypothetical question, designed to prompt discussion, but I really don't know what a practical solution to the problem might look like..." I don't think there will ever be one to be honest, but a little awareness could ease the situation occasionally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many women would be happy to take over the fire service positions? Oh don't be silly, it's not about that.... It was very moving - a lot of women were simply describing how they would go running at night, or simply out on their own without looking over their shoulder...sit on the beach looking at the stars....sleep with their window open at night...use public transport without fear so they could sell their car..... What was most touching was some of the replies of the men - who had just never thought of all these things as a gender privilege. One guy actually said "Wow, I feel horrible right now. None of this has ever occurred to me as an issue. I run, I go do whatever I want whenever I want. Why aren't women filled with uncontrollable rage all the time?" I thought it was a pretty profound subject. A famous author apparently once said 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them' Ah now I get it. That’s actually quite interesting and makes sense to be honest. I don’t think some men realise though. That quote I’ve heard before, it’s spot on really. I agree, I think a lot of men have no idea. I’d like to read the report it does sound really interesting. I don't think there is a report - it was a question asked on Twitter by a Civil Rights Activist with 88k followers, so it generated a lot of response and is one of Twitters top stories!" Oh sorry I missed that bit. It is an interesting question though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would that help the majority of women who are attacked or sexually assaulted (can't write the r word) by people they already know? Women don't seem to realise that most physical attacks on women, by men, are from men they know and not a stranger out on their nightly run. " Nightly my arse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I sometimes work passed 9pm, who’s going to be doing my job, cause no woman can ?!" Ignore that, I didn’t read the thread properly. Interesting thread OP, men really are awful shits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would that help the majority of women who are attacked or sexually assaulted (can't write the r word) by people they already know? Women don't seem to realise that most physical attacks on women, by men, are from men they know and not a stranger out on their nightly run. Nightly my arse" Once monthly then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reading all the replies is so sad - I am sure a lot of them are from women living in urban america, but they walk to their cars with keys gripped tight in a fist or their hand on pepper spray in their bags....they can't go camping or walking the dog or doing many, many simple, basic things they would like to do alone at night. "I would have taken the subway home for $1.50 instead of paying $16 for a cab after my bar shift for 15 years every night." "I could see cities at night when traveling, instead of being in hotel by sunset." "Go for a walk & admire night sky. Leave knife home. Go grocery shopping. Not worry about finding parking under a bright light & close to the store. Take trash out w/o jumping at every noise. Check my mail box w/o carrying pepper spray. Take a bus. Sleep with a window open." "I would go outside or to a park at night. I love the nighttime outside when it's so quiet, and there is a quiet contemplative beauty to the world, especially in the city. But is hard to enjoy it when I'm hypervigilant to possible threats (getting mugged/assaulted/kidna**ed)." Etc, etc, etc." I’ve only read a few and it’s really sad. I saw the one mentioning she’d like to go camping and another mentioning she’d love to look at the stars, another who said she’d love to go food shopping as in the evening is her favourite time to go. Where I live is pretty safe and all the neighbours talk and as far as I know there’s not been issues but I’d still not walk in the dark alone. I’ve been followed twice one when I was 14 the other 16, and was locked in a taxi once, so it puts the creepers in you. I’d love to walk at night especially at this time of year with my headphones on and just enjoy it, but it’s never gonna happen! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. " I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ?" Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. " The last time I used nunchucks I hit myself on the head, so it's best they stay in the cupboard. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. " Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I sometimes work passed 9pm, who’s going to be doing my job, cause no woman can ?! Ignore that, I didn’t read the thread properly. Interesting thread OP, men really are awful shits. " The majority aren't, but it still does not stop the majority of women being scared. Food for thought. My heart also goes out the the young black kids in London, they are in fear of their lives from a very early age - I heard a very inspiring talk about that recently. Prisoners to the streets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night "Gosh I've never done that - but then I avoid walking at night. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night "And me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. " Everyone has a plan til they get punched in the mouth - Mike Tyson | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me."You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me "You cant generally drive straight into clubs,shops etc  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me
You cant generally drive straight into clubs,shops etc "And isnt that generally the point of the thread. Why cant i walk about at night. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me
You cant generally drive straight into clubs,shops etc
And isnt that generally the point of the thread. Why cant i walk about at night. "Well I'd suggest the women walking round tooled up with keys could be the problem | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me
You cant generally drive straight into clubs,shops etc
And isnt that generally the point of the thread. Why cant i walk about at night.
Well I'd suggest the women walking round tooled up with keys could be the problem"Vigilante woman going about righting the wrongs of society. Pants on over our tights and all that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me
You cant generally drive straight into clubs,shops etc
And isnt that generally the point of the thread. Why cant i walk about at night.
Well I'd suggest the women walking round tooled up with keys could be the problem"Oh bollocks, what an idiotic thing to say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me
You cant generally drive straight into clubs,shops etc
And isnt that generally the point of the thread. Why cant i walk about at night.
Well I'd suggest the women walking round tooled up with keys could be the problem
Vigilante woman going about righting the wrongs of society. Pants on over our tights and all that. "Team Tenna Lady | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me "Maybe the car doesn’t fit inside the shop/bar/theatre/restaurant and so some walking is also necessary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me
Maybe the car doesn’t fit inside the shop/bar/theatre/restaurant and so some walking is also necessary. "I forgot car parking is so hard at night, why are you all shopping drinking and and going to cinemas in dodgy unlit areas full of dangerous men... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me
Maybe the car doesn’t fit inside the shop/bar/theatre/restaurant and so some walking is also necessary.
I forgot car parking is so hard at night, why are you all shopping drinking and and going to cinemas in dodgy unlit areas full of dangerous men..."Methinks somebody's butt hurts... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me
Maybe the car doesn’t fit inside the shop/bar/theatre/restaurant and so some walking is also necessary.
I forgot car parking is so hard at night, why are you all shopping drinking and and going to cinemas in dodgy unlit areas full of dangerous men..."I’m assuming this is dry humour/irony, given the topic of the thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me
Maybe the car doesn’t fit inside the shop/bar/theatre/restaurant and so some walking is also necessary.
I forgot car parking is so hard at night, why are you all shopping drinking and and going to cinemas in dodgy unlit areas full of dangerous men...
I’m assuming this is dry humour/irony, given the topic of the thread" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me
Maybe the car doesn’t fit inside the shop/bar/theatre/restaurant and so some walking is also necessary.
I forgot car parking is so hard at night, why are you all shopping drinking and and going to cinemas in dodgy unlit areas full of dangerous men...
Methinks somebody's butt hurts..."Moi ? From what exactly ? Sounding a lil saltay if you ask me  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would that help the majority of women who are attacked or sexually assaulted (can't write the r word) by people they already know? Women don't seem to realise that most physical attacks on women, by men, are from men they know and not a stranger out on their nightly run. " The man who punched me in the face. The man who sexually attacked me. The man who punched my phone out of my hand as I was filming him threatening me. All strangers. So less generalisation would be marvelous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would that help the majority of women who are attacked or sexually assaulted (can't write the r word) by people they already know? Women don't seem to realise that most physical attacks on women, by men, are from men they know and not a stranger out on their nightly run. The man who punched me in the face. The man who sexually attacked me. The man who punched my phone out of my hand as I was filming him threatening me. All strangers. So less generalisation would be marvelous." So you would punish all men for the actions of a few? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Teach boys from a young age to respect women. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would that help the majority of women who are attacked or sexually assaulted (can't write the r word) by people they already know? Women don't seem to realise that most physical attacks on women, by men, are from men they know and not a stranger out on their nightly run. The man who punched me in the face. The man who sexually attacked me. The man who punched my phone out of my hand as I was filming him threatening me. All strangers. So less generalisation would be marvelous." To be fair to him he did say most not all and sadly its true most attacks but not all are by people we know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would that help the majority of women who are attacked or sexually assaulted (can't write the r word) by people they already know? Women don't seem to realise that most physical attacks on women, by men, are from men they know and not a stranger out on their nightly run. The man who punched me in the face. The man who sexually attacked me. The man who punched my phone out of my hand as I was filming him threatening me. All strangers. So less generalisation would be marvelous." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Teach boys from a young age to respect women. " This! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Teach boys from a young age to respect women. " Good parents do, but it is undermined as they grow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Teach boys from a young age to respect women. This! " Because no one's tried that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have keys at the ready sometimes at night, when I'm walking alone. I would still do that if men were on a curfew. It's my own paranoia making me careful, not the chance of me being randomly attacked in my street. I'm sorry do these keys have nun chucks on them ? Nope, a long, metal key ring thing I will punch them in the eye with. I have it all planned out. Ive had my car key between my fingers many a time walking about at night
And me.
You have a car but you choose to walk about at night ... the logic eludes me
Maybe the car doesn’t fit inside the shop/bar/theatre/restaurant and so some walking is also necessary.
I forgot car parking is so hard at night, why are you all shopping drinking and and going to cinemas in dodgy unlit areas full of dangerous men..."I don't drive; mine are house keys. I would like to carry a taser or machete but that's not legal yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Teach boys from a young age to respect women. This! Because no one's tried that "It's the mothers' fault. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Teach boys from a young age to respect women. This! Because no one's tried that "Ok. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would that help the majority of women who are attacked or sexually assaulted (can't write the r word) by people they already know? Women don't seem to realise that most physical attacks on women, by men, are from men they know and not a stranger out on their nightly run. The man who punched me in the face. The man who sexually attacked me. The man who punched my phone out of my hand as I was filming him threatening me. All strangers. So less generalisation would be marvelous. So you would punish all men for the actions of a few? " Of course, not this is a hypothetical debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unfortunately every time I have been assaulted it has been during the day, or in said persons house. So they wouldn’t be breaking curfew. Like what was said before, teach boys (all children) respect from a very young age. And teach them no means no. I had a brilliant conversation with my twin nieces about consent. They wanted to tickle their friend, who kept saying no. So we had a lovely, age appropriate chat about consent. "Aw that’s sweet, it reminds me of the chat I had with my nephew about giving girls kisses on the cheek. He then asked me “Auntie can I give you a kiss on the cheek” I melted! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many women would be happy to take over the fire service positions?" Me! I love a pole and a helmet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unfortunately every time I have been assaulted it has been during the day, or in said persons house. So they wouldn’t be breaking curfew. Like what was said before, teach boys (all children) respect from a very young age. And teach them no means no. I had a brilliant conversation with my twin nieces about consent. They wanted to tickle their friend, who kept saying no. So we had a lovely, age appropriate chat about consent.
Aw that’s sweet, it reminds me of the chat I had with my nephew about giving girls kisses on the cheek. He then asked me “Auntie can I give you a kiss on the cheek” I melted!"I used to work in a private nursery and tried implimenting consent from a young age. From the moment they could decide if they wanted a cuddle or not, I would ask them beforehand if they wanted one or not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Teach boys from a young age to respect women. This! Because no one's tried that
It's the mothers' fault."Is she even at home!?!?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Teach boys from a young age to respect women. This! Because no one's tried that
It's the mothers' fault."My mother? Probably. She's awful. Not that I've ever assaulted or rap€d anybody. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many women would be happy to take over the fire service positions? Me! I love a pole and a helmet " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I suppose men generally are fairly easy-going, because this Twitter thread is actually quite offensive. It's basically saying that all men should be punished by curfew for the crimes of the few. " Lol, oh for crying out loud it says NOTHING of the kind!!! It's a game of 'What if?' played SOLELY to find out how women feel! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. " Shackles then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would that help the majority of women who are attacked or sexually assaulted (can't write the r word) by people they already know? Women don't seem to realise that most physical attacks on women, by men, are from men they know and not a stranger out on their nightly run. The man who punched me in the face. The man who sexually attacked me. The man who punched my phone out of my hand as I was filming him threatening me. All strangers. So less generalisation would be marvelous. So you would punish all men for the actions of a few? Of course, not this is a hypothetical debate "Ok then, hypothetically a woman could have done that to you too. The only time I've been attacked (excluding by my own husband in our house) was one afternoon by 3 teenage girls. Would I feel safer if teenage girls were put on a curfew? No. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I suppose men generally are fairly easy-going, because this Twitter thread is actually quite offensive. It's basically saying that all men should be punished by curfew for the crimes of the few. Lol, oh for crying out loud it says NOTHING of the kind!!! It's a game of 'What if?' played SOLELY to find out how women feel! "And every woman said that they are afraid of men after 9pm? Which part of America was this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. " You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I suppose men generally are fairly easy-going, because this Twitter thread is actually quite offensive. It's basically saying that all men should be punished by curfew for the crimes of the few. Lol, oh for crying out loud it says NOTHING of the kind!!! It's a game of 'What if?' played SOLELY to find out how women feel!
And every woman said that they are afraid of men after 9pm? Which part of America was this?"I suggest you reread the OP's | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Erm I must be a man then. Never feared for my safety. Never worried about being out after dark. Probably why I had to read a few posts to click what this was all about "To be fair, I had to read a few posts too. I’m the same as you really. Like I said previously, I’ve only been assaulted during the day (and I was with a bunch of friends) and in a ‘friends’ bedroom. So being out on my own, late at night has never bothered me. Nothing bad has happened. However, I can 100% understand why it terrifies some people. My lovely friend was assaulted in a car, and now won’t get in a car with a man she doesn’t know too well or isn’t 100% comfortable with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I suppose men generally are fairly easy-going, because this Twitter thread is actually quite offensive. It's basically saying that all men should be punished by curfew for the crimes of the few. Lol, oh for crying out loud it says NOTHING of the kind!!! It's a game of 'What if?' played SOLELY to find out how women feel! "Besides, do you not follow the news? You like can't be sexist towards men, like, ever. Duh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol!" yes, and I gave a logical response to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. " No you entirely missed the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. " It's called hypothesis | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I suppose men generally are fairly easy-going, because this Twitter thread is actually quite offensive. It's basically saying that all men should be punished by curfew for the crimes of the few. Lol, oh for crying out loud it says NOTHING of the kind!!! It's a game of 'What if?' played SOLELY to find out how women feel!
Besides, do you not follow the news? You like can't be sexist towards men, like, ever. Duh."Sorry it is not clear what your point is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would that help the majority of women who are attacked or sexually assaulted (can't write the r word) by people they already know? Women don't seem to realise that most physical attacks on women, by men, are from men they know and not a stranger out on their nightly run. The man who punched me in the face. The man who sexually attacked me. The man who punched my phone out of my hand as I was filming him threatening me. All strangers. So less generalisation would be marvelous. So you would punish all men for the actions of a few? Of course, not this is a hypothetical debate
Ok then, hypothetically a woman could have done that to you too.
The only time I've been attacked (excluding by my own husband in our house) was one afternoon by 3 teenage girls. Would I feel safer if teenage girls were put on a curfew? No."Don't see what that has to do with the theme of the thread but ok. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. " no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reading all the replies is so sad - I am sure a lot of them are from women living in urban america, but they walk to their cars with keys gripped tight in a fist or their hand on pepper spray in their bags....they can't go camping or walking the dog or doing many, many simple, basic things they would like to do alone at night. "I would have taken the subway home for $1.50 instead of paying $16 for a cab after my bar shift for 15 years every night." "I could see cities at night when traveling, instead of being in hotel by sunset." "Go for a walk & admire night sky. Leave knife home. Go grocery shopping. Not worry about finding parking under a bright light & close to the store. Take trash out w/o jumping at every noise. Check my mail box w/o carrying pepper spray. Take a bus. Sleep with a window open." "I would go outside or to a park at night. I love the nighttime outside when it's so quiet, and there is a quiet contemplative beauty to the world, especially in the city. But is hard to enjoy it when I'm hypervigilant to possible threats (getting mugged/assaulted/kidna**ed)." Etc, etc, etc." This is "OP" number 30 and no indication of which part of America but I'm guessing it must have a high rate of crime against women by men, or they are very paranoid women. Worrying about being kidna**ed? How often does that happen in America for this woman to be worried about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many women would be happy to take over the fire service positions? Me! I love a pole and a helmet " Classic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would that help the majority of women who are attacked or sexually assaulted (can't write the r word) by people they already know? Women don't seem to realise that most physical attacks on women, by men, are from men they know and not a stranger out on their nightly run. The man who punched me in the face. The man who sexually attacked me. The man who punched my phone out of my hand as I was filming him threatening me. All strangers. So less generalisation would be marvelous. So you would punish all men for the actions of a few? Of course, not this is a hypothetical debate
Ok then, hypothetically a woman could have done that to you too.
The only time I've been attacked (excluding by my own husband in our house) was one afternoon by 3 teenage girls. Would I feel safer if teenage girls were put on a curfew? No.
Don't see what that has to do with the theme of the thread but ok."Sorry, I forgot the theme was only men are a danger to women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. " I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would that help the majority of women who are attacked or sexually assaulted (can't write the r word) by people they already know? Women don't seem to realise that most physical attacks on women, by men, are from men they know and not a stranger out on their nightly run. The man who punched me in the face. The man who sexually attacked me. The man who punched my phone out of my hand as I was filming him threatening me. All strangers. So less generalisation would be marvelous. So you would punish all men for the actions of a few? Of course, not this is a hypothetical debate
Ok then, hypothetically a woman could have done that to you too.
The only time I've been attacked (excluding by my own husband in our house) was one afternoon by 3 teenage girls. Would I feel safer if teenage girls were put on a curfew? No.
Don't see what that has to do with the theme of the thread but ok.
Sorry, I forgot the theme was only men are a danger to women. "That wasn't the point at all - maybe you need to go away and think about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. " It's totally irrelevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. " Thank you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. " not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. " Ah well, the 30k or so on Twitter that responded seemed to get the point fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. " It’s not badly worded, you’re just being obtuse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. It’s not badly worded, you’re just being obtuse. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. It’s not badly worded, you’re just being obtuse. "  told! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems perception of threat is worse that actual threat, which is a shame. " No argument there - that is what became apparent, both the enormous amount of fear, and the mundane things it stopped women doing. Many just wanted to look at the stars or take their kids camping, and it's really sad that fear would prevent such simple pleasures. On the other hand, experiencing a truly safe environment is a transformative experience, or a deeply moving one anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. Ah well, the 30k or so on Twitter that responded seemed to get the point fine." I could make a point that would infringe Godwins law about how large numbers thinking the same thing, isn't the same as what they thought being or not being correct and as such should not be used as proof of validity 
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. " ‘Knock knock’ ‘I’ve got a doorbell’ ‘Yes, ok, but just go with it...knock knock’ ‘No, I’ve got a doorbell, it’s very conspicuous, no-one would knock’ ‘No, really, trust me, that bit doesn’t matter, it’s just a way to get to the next part’ ‘Well I don’t care about the next part, no-one would ever go knock knock...’ ‘Ok, ding dong’ ‘Well I’m not in anyway...’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. Ah well, the 30k or so on Twitter that responded seemed to get the point fine. I could make a point that would infringe Godwins law about how large numbers thinking the same thing, isn't the same as what they thought being or not being correct and as such should not be used as proof of validity
"Oh bullshit lol, you are just being stroppy for the sake of it, suck it up buttercup! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems perception of threat is worse that actual threat, which is a shame. No argument there - that is what became apparent, both the enormous amount of fear, and the mundane things it stopped women doing. Many just wanted to look at the stars or take their kids camping, and it's really sad that fear would prevent such simple pleasures. On the other hand, experiencing a truly safe environment is a transformative experience, or a deeply moving one anyway." A truly safe environment being one where there are no men after 9pm?
Just what would that teach future generations of children about the perception of opposite genders and how would such apparent negative stereotyping ever improve the perceived alleged dangers of men being allowed out at night.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems perception of threat is worse that actual threat, which is a shame. No argument there - that is what became apparent, both the enormous amount of fear, and the mundane things it stopped women doing. Many just wanted to look at the stars or take their kids camping, and it's really sad that fear would prevent such simple pleasures. On the other hand, experiencing a truly safe environment is a transformative experience, or a deeply moving one anyway. A truly safe environment being one where there are no men after 9pm?
"No, one in which no-one presented any threat, and everyone feels safe all the time. It's an amazing feeling to be out at 1am, alone, and feel free to stop and chat to a lone man without fear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. Ah well, the 30k or so on Twitter that responded seemed to get the point fine. I could make a point that would infringe Godwins law about how large numbers thinking the same thing, isn't the same as what they thought being or not being correct and as such should not be used as proof of validity
Oh bullshit lol, you are just being stroppy for the sake of it, suck it up buttercup! "not really, it's just Argumentum ad populum, a classic discussion fallacy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the most touching thing of all to me was the men that contributed saying 'OMG I just cannot imagine not being able to go where I want whenever I choose....."" I’m totally sympathetic to the premis, however, men can’t just go wherever they want to whenever they want to in complete safety either. I was started on by some psycho in town a couple of weeks ago in a busy area. And hanging around in secluded areas late at night can be dangerous for anyone. But there is certainly more threat to women than men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems perception of threat is worse that actual threat, which is a shame. No argument there - that is what became apparent, both the enormous amount of fear, and the mundane things it stopped women doing. Many just wanted to look at the stars or take their kids camping, and it's really sad that fear would prevent such simple pleasures. On the other hand, experiencing a truly safe environment is a transformative experience, or a deeply moving one anyway. A truly safe environment being one where there are no men after 9pm?
No, one in which no-one presented any threat, and everyone feels safe all the time. It's an amazing feeling to be out at 1am, alone, and feel free to stop and chat to a lone man without fear."You won't be able to, he'll be on curfew with all the dangerous men. You'll be stuck with thousands of women all out on their midnight runs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. Ah well, the 30k or so on Twitter that responded seemed to get the point fine. I could make a point that would infringe Godwins law about how large numbers thinking the same thing, isn't the same as what they thought being or not being correct and as such should not be used as proof of validity
Oh bullshit lol, you are just being stroppy for the sake of it, suck it up buttercup! not really, it's just Argumentum ad populum, a classic discussion fallacy. "It doesn’t alter the fact that the question is not about understanding the logistics of keeping men off the streets after 9pm. It is about imagining the hypothetical situation in which this has occurred. In this instance, 30,000 people have understood correctly and you have not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems perception of threat is worse that actual threat, which is a shame. No argument there - that is what became apparent, both the enormous amount of fear, and the mundane things it stopped women doing. Many just wanted to look at the stars or take their kids camping, and it's really sad that fear would prevent such simple pleasures. On the other hand, experiencing a truly safe environment is a transformative experience, or a deeply moving one anyway. A truly safe environment being one where there are no men after 9pm?
No, one in which no-one presented any threat, and everyone feels safe all the time. It's an amazing feeling to be out at 1am, alone, and feel free to stop and chat to a lone man without fear."And yet this thread and I guess the previous Twitter comments which I have not seen are based on a simple but intellectually dishonest premise that men must be feared after whatever predetermined time of day or night as we are collectively some malign entity who are a danger to women or not safe to be out after dark. This thread seems to stoke fear and perception, or give voice to such perceptions of fear not Bourne out by reality... It smacks of the school of mis-thought that all men are r*push a or mysognists....when such is patently not the case. And just for the sake of balence...tbalence...there are places I would not walk alone at night too. There are good reasons for that, but we all the responsibility for our own safety and to suggest one gender is somehow the cause of all fear or risk or danger is to distort reality in a dishonest manner...no matter what the hypothesis may be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'll be stuck with thousands of women all out on their midnight runs. " Now that looks like the perfect lesbian lickfest | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. Ah well, the 30k or so on Twitter that responded seemed to get the point fine. I could make a point that would infringe Godwins law about how large numbers thinking the same thing, isn't the same as what they thought being or not being correct and as such should not be used as proof of validity
Oh bullshit lol, you are just being stroppy for the sake of it, suck it up buttercup! not really, it's just Argumentum ad populum, a classic discussion fallacy.
It doesn’t alter the fact that the question is not about understanding the logistics of keeping men off the streets after 9pm. It is about imagining the hypothetical situation in which this has occurred. In this instance, 30,000 people have understood correctly and you have not. "I understand it fine, however the use of the word curfew does not fit the intension. Pointing that out doesn't mean I don't get 'it'. To imagine that world as it is worded. My point on it stands. If they had simply stated men couldn't leave the house after 9pm. The spirit of the tweet, my point would not... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just looked it up U.N. figures show 78% of murder victims are male, in actual fact in all crime other than sexual, men are at least twice as likely to be the victim than women. But men can still go camping alone (which is probably why they keep getting murdered) There are no simple answers, hopefully one day we will evolve and violence will be confined to history." Vote artifificialname for President of the World | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems perception of threat is worse that actual threat, which is a shame. No argument there - that is what became apparent, both the enormous amount of fear, and the mundane things it stopped women doing. Many just wanted to look at the stars or take their kids camping, and it's really sad that fear would prevent such simple pleasures. On the other hand, experiencing a truly safe environment is a transformative experience, or a deeply moving one anyway. A truly safe environment being one where there are no men after 9pm?
No, one in which no-one presented any threat, and everyone feels safe all the time. It's an amazing feeling to be out at 1am, alone, and feel free to stop and chat to a lone man without fear.
And yet this thread and I guess the previous Twitter comments which I have not seen are based on a simple but intellectually dishonest premise that men must be feared after whatever predetermined time of day or night as we are collectively some malign entity who are a danger to women or not safe to be out after dark.
This thread seems to stoke fear and perception, or give voice to such perceptions of fear not Bourne out by reality...
It smacks of the school of mis-thought that all men are r*push a or mysognists....when such is patently not the case.
And just for the sake of balence...tbalence...there are places I would not walk alone at night too. There are good reasons for that, but we all the responsibility for our own safety and to suggest one gender is somehow the cause of all fear or risk or danger is to distort reality in a dishonest manner...no matter what the hypothesis may be.
"The suggestion isn’t that men are all a threat but a recognition that a massive amount of violence is inflicted on women by men and this can make some women fearful if out on their own. It doesn’t suggest that all men are a threat but that the sense of threat would be reduced in that scenario because the friend/foe question wouldn’t be so present in their minds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just looked it up U.N. figures show 78% of murder victims are male, in actual fact in all crime other than sexual, men are at least twice as likely to be the victim than women. But men can still go camping alone (which is probably why they keep getting murdered) There are no simple answers, hopefully one day we will evolve and violence will be confined to history. Vote artifificialname for President of the World "Not again, too many meetings not enough parties | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just looked it up U.N. figures show 78% of murder victims are male, in actual fact in all crime other than sexual, men are at least twice as likely to be the victim than women. But men can still go camping alone (which is probably why they keep getting murdered) There are no simple answers, hopefully one day we will evolve and violence will be confined to history." It would be interesting to see what sex the offenders were, against the men and against the women. I’ve a feeling that the majority would be male but it would be interesting to see the stats. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. Ah well, the 30k or so on Twitter that responded seemed to get the point fine. I could make a point that would infringe Godwins law about how large numbers thinking the same thing, isn't the same as what they thought being or not being correct and as such should not be used as proof of validity
Oh bullshit lol, you are just being stroppy for the sake of it, suck it up buttercup! not really, it's just Argumentum ad populum, a classic discussion fallacy.
It doesn’t alter the fact that the question is not about understanding the logistics of keeping men off the streets after 9pm. It is about imagining the hypothetical situation in which this has occurred. In this instance, 30,000 people have understood correctly and you have not. I understand it fine, however the use of the word curfew does not fit the intension. Pointing that out doesn't mean I don't get 'it'. To imagine that world as it is worded. My point on it stands. If they had simply stated men couldn't leave the house after 9pm. The spirit of the tweet, my point would not... "So although, by your own admission, you understood perfectly well that the word curfew is being used to mean ‘could not leave the house’, you are labouring a point of pedantry that is irrelevant to the very obvious spirit of the post. As the impala said, you are indeed being obtuse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. Ah well, the 30k or so on Twitter that responded seemed to get the point fine. I could make a point that would infringe Godwins law about how large numbers thinking the same thing, isn't the same as what they thought being or not being correct and as such should not be used as proof of validity
Oh bullshit lol, you are just being stroppy for the sake of it, suck it up buttercup! not really, it's just Argumentum ad populum, a classic discussion fallacy. "It's Twitter honeybun - get real! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the most touching thing of all to me was the men that contributed saying 'OMG I just cannot imagine not being able to go where I want whenever I choose....." I’m totally sympathetic to the premis, however, men can’t just go wherever they want to whenever they want to in complete safety either. I was started on by some psycho in town a couple of weeks ago in a busy area. And hanging around in secluded areas late at night can be dangerous for anyone. " No argument, the knife crime in London is male on male largely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems perception of threat is worse that actual threat, which is a shame. No argument there - that is what became apparent, both the enormous amount of fear, and the mundane things it stopped women doing. Many just wanted to look at the stars or take their kids camping, and it's really sad that fear would prevent such simple pleasures. On the other hand, experiencing a truly safe environment is a transformative experience, or a deeply moving one anyway. A truly safe environment being one where there are no men after 9pm?
No, one in which no-one presented any threat, and everyone feels safe all the time. It's an amazing feeling to be out at 1am, alone, and feel free to stop and chat to a lone man without fear.
You won't be able to, he'll be on curfew with all the dangerous men.
You'll be stuck with thousands of women all out on their midnight runs. "H Y P O T H E T I C A L!!! Anyway I can and I did, it was a real experience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be logical to assume that men willing to break the law in violent and despicable ways, would not be put off by the extra infraction of breaking curfew. Especially into a night devoid of other men, and women less on guard. You do understand what the word hypothetical means? Lol! yes, and I gave a logical response to it. No you entirely missed the point. no, given the hypothetical question didn't state a completely flawless and unbreakable curfew, my point is valid. I think the idea is to understand the effect on women if men were not present outdoors at night. The logistics of how that would be brought about arent really the important part. not really my problem that the question is badly worded so my point on it stands. Ah well, the 30k or so on Twitter that responded seemed to get the point fine. I could make a point that would infringe Godwins law about how large numbers thinking the same thing, isn't the same as what they thought being or not being correct and as such should not be used as proof of validity
Oh bullshit lol, you are just being stroppy for the sake of it, suck it up buttercup! not really, it's just Argumentum ad populum, a classic discussion fallacy.
It doesn’t alter the fact that the question is not about understanding the logistics of keeping men off the streets after 9pm. It is about imagining the hypothetical situation in which this has occurred. In this instance, 30,000 people have understood correctly and you have not. I understand it fine, however the use of the word curfew does not fit the intension. Pointing that out doesn't mean I don't get 'it'. To imagine that world as it is worded. My point on it stands. If they had simply stated men couldn't leave the house after 9pm. The spirit of the tweet, my point would not...
So although, by your own admission, you understood perfectly well that the word curfew is being used to mean ‘could not leave the house’, you are labouring a point of pedantry that is irrelevant to the very obvious spirit of the post. As the impala said, you are indeed being obtuse. "understanding that a word is being used incorrectly means I should not post about it being used incorrectly? Especially as it kind of invalidates the hoped for hypothetical situation, Interesting take on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems perception of threat is worse that actual threat, which is a shame. No argument there - that is what became apparent, both the enormous amount of fear, and the mundane things it stopped women doing. Many just wanted to look at the stars or take their kids camping, and it's really sad that fear would prevent such simple pleasures. On the other hand, experiencing a truly safe environment is a transformative experience, or a deeply moving one anyway. A truly safe environment being one where there are no men after 9pm?
No, one in which no-one presented any threat, and everyone feels safe all the time. It's an amazing feeling to be out at 1am, alone, and feel free to stop and chat to a lone man without fear.
And yet this thread and I guess the previous Twitter comments which I have not seen are based on a simple but intellectually dishonest premise that men must be feared.......
"I disagree. The question was asked, and women answered honestly - their behaviour would be very different if they had no fear, that is simply the truth. No-one I saw was even discussing the question of whether or not their fear was justified, how justified it was, or what to do about it..... Simply that women could not do simple things at night because of their fear of men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just looked it up U.N. figures show 78% of murder victims are male, in actual fact in all crime other than sexual, men are at least twice as likely to be the victim than women. But men can still go camping alone (which is probably why they keep getting murdered) There are no simple answers, hopefully one day we will evolve and violence will be confined to history. It would be interesting to see what sex the offenders were, against the men and against the women. I’ve a feeling that the majority would be male but it would be interesting to see the stats." When I read that I thought the same thing. The perpetrators are mostly male I bet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems perception of threat is worse that actual threat, which is a shame. No argument there - that is what became apparent, both the enormous amount of fear, and the mundane things it stopped women doing. Many just wanted to look at the stars or take their kids camping, and it's really sad that fear would prevent such simple pleasures. On the other hand, experiencing a truly safe environment is a transformative experience, or a deeply moving one anyway. A truly safe environment being one where there are no men after 9pm?
No, one in which no-one presented any threat, and everyone feels safe all the time. It's an amazing feeling to be out at 1am, alone, and feel free to stop and chat to a lone man without fear.
And yet this thread and I guess the previous Twitter comments which I have not seen are based on a simple but intellectually dishonest premise that men must be feared after whatever predetermined time of day or night as we are collectively some malign entity who are a danger to women or not safe to be out after dark.
This thread seems to stoke fear and perception, or give voice to such perceptions of fear not Bourne out by reality...
It smacks of the school of mis-thought that all men are r*push a or mysognists....when such is patently not the case.
And just for the sake of balence...tbalence...there are places I would not walk alone at night too. There are good reasons for that, but we all the responsibility for our own safety and to suggest one gender is somehow the cause of all fear or risk or danger is to distort reality in a dishonest manner...no matter what the hypothesis may be.
The suggestion isn’t that men are all a threat but a recognition that a massive amount of violence is inflicted on women by men and this can make some women fearful if out on their own. "I was just discussing this with a friend..I have never suffered any kind of violence or come to any harm...and yet I still fear it. I think the point that makes me afraid is simply that most men are stronger and faster than most women - and if I were to meet a man with ill intention, it is highly likely that they could overpower me, or inflict greater damage or have a strength of grip that would prevent me escaping. I am totally realistically simply aware of my physical vulnerability, and I don't think more than that is required. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just looked it up U.N. figures show 78% of murder victims are male, in actual fact in all crime other than sexual, men are at least twice as likely to be the victim than women. But men can still go camping alone (which is probably why they keep getting murdered) There are no simple answers, hopefully one day we will evolve and violence will be confined to history. It would be interesting to see what sex the offenders were, against the men and against the women. I’ve a feeling that the majority would be male but it would be interesting to see the stats. When I read that I thought the same thing. The perpetrators are mostly male I bet. " Yes, too many numbers to pull out for a simple quote, but the basics are most violent crime world wide is male on male. That of course misses out pretty much all the motive and opportunity, It's not easy to make actual sense out of statistics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just looked it up U.N. figures show 78% of murder victims are male, in actual fact in all crime other than sexual, men are at least twice as likely to be the victim than women. But men can still go camping alone (which is probably why they keep getting murdered) There are no simple answers, hopefully one day we will evolve and violence will be confined to history. It would be interesting to see what sex the offenders were, against the men and against the women. I’ve a feeling that the majority would be male but it would be interesting to see the stats. When I read that I thought the same thing. The perpetrators are mostly male I bet. Yes, too many numbers to pull out for a simple quote, but the basics are most violent crime world wide is male on male. " Violence, but maybe not so much mugging or sexual crimes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just looked it up U.N. figures show 78% of murder victims are male, in actual fact in all crime other than sexual, men are at least twice as likely to be the victim than women. But men can still go camping alone (which is probably why they keep getting murdered) There are no simple answers, hopefully one day we will evolve and violence will be confined to history. It would be interesting to see what sex the offenders were, against the men and against the women. I’ve a feeling that the majority would be male but it would be interesting to see the stats. When I read that I thought the same thing. The perpetrators are mostly male I bet. Yes, too many numbers to pull out for a simple quote, but the basics are most violent crime world wide is male on male. Violence, but maybe not so much mugging or sexual crimes?" Mugging yes twice as many, sexual no that is the one statistic where women lose out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this statistic alone explains the level of fear in American woman: • Nearly 1 in 5 or almost 23 million women in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.1 • Approximately 1 in 71 or 1.9 million men in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.2" the USA seems a dangerous place... From UK stats... Location the victim’s home (39%), the offender’s home (24%). on the street for 9% . So safest thing to do is go out midnight running, camping etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The perpetrators are mostly male I bet. " That is generally true, I don't know why that should be, but it might be something to do with the fact that men used to go out and kill things for everyone to eat, but should have washed out of our genes by now.. I could murder a curry right now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this statistic alone explains the level of fear in American woman: • Nearly 1 in 5 or almost 23 million women in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.1 • Approximately 1 in 71 or 1.9 million men in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.2 the USA seems a dangerous place... From UK stats... Location the victim’s home (39%), the offender’s home (24%). on the street for 9% . So safest thing to do is go out midnight running, camping etc. " It should be noted here that the law in the US and UK defines r*pe as the act of forced penitrative sex. Woman, unless equipped with a penis, be it pre op transsexual (of which there have been zero cases to date) or woman with synthetic penis, can not r*pe man. And even in these cases it maybe classified as forced soddomy. If a woman forces a man to have sex with her it is classified as sexual assault. It happens. The penalty for sexual assault is much lower than that of r*pe. Worst case to date was in Australia, where a British male backpacker was picked up by a group of 6 girls, drugged, and forced to perform intercourse with them repeatedly over a number of days. He was, effectively r*ped. In the eyes of the law at the time it was only sexual assault. I forget the out come of the trial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this statistic alone explains the level of fear in American woman: • Nearly 1 in 5 or almost 23 million women in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.1 • Approximately 1 in 71 or 1.9 million men in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.2 the USA seems a dangerous place... From UK stats... Location the victim’s home (39%), the offender’s home (24%). on the street for 9% . So safest thing to do is go out midnight running, camping etc. It should be noted here that the law in the US and UK defines r*pe as the act of forced penitrative sex. Woman, unless equipped with a penis, be it pre op transsexual (of which there have been zero cases to date) or woman with synthetic penis, can not r*pe man. And even in these cases it maybe classified as forced soddomy. If a woman forces a man to have sex with her it is classified as sexual assault. It happens. The penalty for sexual assault is much lower than that of r*pe. Worst case to date was in Australia, where a British male backpacker was picked up by a group of 6 girls, drugged, and forced to perform intercourse with them repeatedly over a number of days. He was, effectively r*ped. In the eyes of the law at the time it was only sexual assault. I forget the out come of the trial." i would be mortified to be sexually abused by 6 ladies   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this statistic alone explains the level of fear in American woman: • Nearly 1 in 5 or almost 23 million women in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.1 • Approximately 1 in 71 or 1.9 million men in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.2 the USA seems a dangerous place... From UK stats... Location the victim’s home (39%), the offender’s home (24%). on the street for 9% . So safest thing to do is go out midnight running, camping etc. It should be noted here that the law in the US and UK defines r*pe as the act of forced penitrative sex. Woman, unless equipped with a penis, be it pre op transsexual (of which there have been zero cases to date) or woman with synthetic penis, can not r*pe man. And even in these cases it maybe classified as forced soddomy. If a woman forces a man to have sex with her it is classified as sexual assault. It happens. The penalty for sexual assault is much lower than that of r*pe. Worst case to date was in Australia, where a British male backpacker was picked up by a group of 6 girls, drugged, and forced to perform intercourse with them repeatedly over a number of days. He was, effectively r*ped. In the eyes of the law at the time it was only sexual assault. I forget the out come of the trial. i would be mortified to be sexually abused by 6 ladies "To be honest mate, what I read of it, it was pretty grim for the poor guy. I was of the same thought till I read more about it... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this statistic alone explains the level of fear in American woman: • Nearly 1 in 5 or almost 23 million women in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.1 • Approximately 1 in 71 or 1.9 million men in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.2 the USA seems a dangerous place... From UK stats... Location the victim’s home (39%), the offender’s home (24%). on the street for 9% . So safest thing to do is go out midnight running, camping etc. It should be noted here that the law in the US and UK defines r*pe as the act of forced penitrative sex. Woman, unless equipped with a penis, be it pre op transsexual (of which there have been zero cases to date) or woman with synthetic penis, can not r*pe man. And even in these cases it maybe classified as forced soddomy. If a woman forces a man to have sex with her it is classified as sexual assault. It happens. The penalty for sexual assault is much lower than that of r*pe. Worst case to date was in Australia, where a British male backpacker was picked up by a group of 6 girls, drugged, and forced to perform intercourse with them repeatedly over a number of days. He was, effectively r*ped. In the eyes of the law at the time it was only sexual assault. I forget the out come of the trial. i would be mortified to be sexually abused by 6 ladies
To be honest mate, what I read of it, it was pretty grim for the poor guy. I was of the same thought till I read more about it..."I'm struggling to see how a guy can be . How the fuck did they keep him hard . I struggle after 1 go | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this statistic alone explains the level of fear in American woman: • Nearly 1 in 5 or almost 23 million women in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.1 • Approximately 1 in 71 or 1.9 million men in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.2 the USA seems a dangerous place... From UK stats... Location the victim’s home (39%), the offender’s home (24%). on the street for 9% . So safest thing to do is go out midnight running, camping etc. It should be noted here that the law in the US and UK defines r*pe as the act of forced penitrative sex. Woman, unless equipped with a penis, be it pre op transsexual (of which there have been zero cases to date) or woman with synthetic penis, can not r*pe man. And even in these cases it maybe classified as forced soddomy. If a woman forces a man to have sex with her it is classified as sexual assault. It happens. The penalty for sexual assault is much lower than that of r*pe. Worst case to date was in Australia, where a British male backpacker was picked up by a group of 6 girls, drugged, and forced to perform intercourse with them repeatedly over a number of days. He was, effectively r*ped. In the eyes of the law at the time it was only sexual assault. I forget the out come of the trial. i would be mortified to be sexually abused by 6 ladies "You've never seen girl with the Dragon Tattoo have you lol! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems perception of threat is worse that actual threat, which is a shame. No argument there - that is what became apparent, both the enormous amount of fear, and the mundane things it stopped women doing. Many just wanted to look at the stars or take their kids camping, and it's really sad that fear would prevent such simple pleasures. On the other hand, experiencing a truly safe environment is a transformative experience, or a deeply moving one anyway. A truly safe environment being one where there are no men after 9pm?
No, one in which no-one presented any threat, and everyone feels safe all the time. It's an amazing feeling to be out at 1am, alone, and feel free to stop and chat to a lone man without fear.
And yet this thread and I guess the previous Twitter comments which I have not seen are based on a simple but intellectually dishonest premise that men must be feared after whatever predetermined time of day or night as we are collectively some malign entity who are a danger to women or not safe to be out after dark.
This thread seems to stoke fear and perception, or give voice to such perceptions of fear not Bourne out by reality...
It smacks of the school of mis-thought that all men are r*push a or mysognists....when such is patently not the case.
And just for the sake of balence...tbalence...there are places I would not walk alone at night too. There are good reasons for that, but we all the responsibility for our own safety and to suggest one gender is somehow the cause of all fear or risk or danger is to distort reality in a dishonest manner...no matter what the hypothesis may be.
The suggestion isn’t that men are all a threat but a recognition that a massive amount of violence is inflicted on women by men and this can make some women fearful if out on their own. It doesn’t suggest that all men are a threat but that the sense of threat would be reduced in that scenario because the friend/foe question wouldn’t be so present in their minds. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this statistic alone explains the level of fear in American woman: • Nearly 1 in 5 or almost 23 million women in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.1 • Approximately 1 in 71 or 1.9 million men in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.2 the USA seems a dangerous place... From UK stats... Location the victim’s home (39%), the offender’s home (24%). on the street for 9% . So safest thing to do is go out midnight running, camping etc. It should be noted here that the law in the US and UK defines r*pe as the act of forced penitrative sex. Woman, unless equipped with a penis, be it pre op transsexual (of which there have been zero cases to date) or woman with synthetic penis, can not r*pe man. And even in these cases it maybe classified as forced soddomy. If a woman forces a man to have sex with her it is classified as sexual assault. It happens. The penalty for sexual assault is much lower than that of r*pe. Worst case to date was in Australia, where a British male backpacker was picked up by a group of 6 girls, drugged, and forced to perform intercourse with them repeatedly over a number of days. He was, effectively r*ped. In the eyes of the law at the time it was only sexual assault. I forget the out come of the trial. i would be mortified to be sexually abused by 6 ladies "And here lies the issue on why it is difficult for male abuse and r*pe victims to be taken seriously | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this statistic alone explains the level of fear in American woman: • Nearly 1 in 5 or almost 23 million women in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.1 • Approximately 1 in 71 or 1.9 million men in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.2 the USA seems a dangerous place... From UK stats... Location the victim’s home (39%), the offender’s home (24%). on the street for 9% . So safest thing to do is go out midnight running, camping etc. It should be noted here that the law in the US and UK defines r*pe as the act of forced penitrative sex. Woman, unless equipped with a penis, be it pre op transsexual (of which there have been zero cases to date) or woman with synthetic penis, can not r*pe man. And even in these cases it maybe classified as forced soddomy. If a woman forces a man to have sex with her it is classified as sexual assault. It happens. The penalty for sexual assault is much lower than that of r*pe. Worst case to date was in Australia, where a British male backpacker was picked up by a group of 6 girls, drugged, and forced to perform intercourse with them repeatedly over a number of days. He was, effectively r*ped. In the eyes of the law at the time it was only sexual assault. I forget the out come of the trial. i would be mortified to be sexually abused by 6 ladies
And here lies the issue on why it is difficult for male abuse and r*pe victims to be taken seriously "Well no he problem is with the six women thinking it's ok to drugged and sexually assault men... not he men making light of it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this statistic alone explains the level of fear in American woman: • Nearly 1 in 5 or almost 23 million women in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.1 • Approximately 1 in 71 or 1.9 million men in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.2 the USA seems a dangerous place... From UK stats... Location the victim’s home (39%), the offender’s home (24%). on the street for 9% . So safest thing to do is go out midnight running, camping etc. It should be noted here that the law in the US and UK defines r*pe as the act of forced penitrative sex. Woman, unless equipped with a penis, be it pre op transsexual (of which there have been zero cases to date) or woman with synthetic penis, can not r*pe man. And even in these cases it maybe classified as forced soddomy. If a woman forces a man to have sex with her it is classified as sexual assault. It happens. The penalty for sexual assault is much lower than that of r*pe. Worst case to date was in Australia, where a British male backpacker was picked up by a group of 6 girls, drugged, and forced to perform intercourse with them repeatedly over a number of days. He was, effectively r*ped. In the eyes of the law at the time it was only sexual assault. I forget the out come of the trial. i would be mortified to be sexually abused by 6 ladies
And here lies the issue on why it is difficult for male abuse and r*pe victims to be taken seriously
Well no he problem is with the six women thinking it's ok to drugged and sexually assault men... not he men making light of it " I wasn't talking about the act itself, I was talking about the wider perception of it by other men.
If a woman had turned round and said similar to toshn about being r*ped she'd be torn a new one because sexual assault on women is quite rightly despised yet its OK for a man to insinuate that he'd enjoy being r*ped by 6 women? How is that right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this statistic alone explains the level of fear in American woman: • Nearly 1 in 5 or almost 23 million women in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.1 • Approximately 1 in 71 or 1.9 million men in the United States have been rap*d in their lifetime.2 the USA seems a dangerous place... From UK stats... Location the victim’s home (39%), the offender’s home (24%). on the street for 9% . So safest thing to do is go out midnight running, camping etc. It should be noted here that the law in the US and UK defines r*pe as the act of forced penitrative sex. Woman, unless equipped with a penis, be it pre op transsexual (of which there have been zero cases to date) or woman with synthetic penis, can not r*pe man. And even in these cases it maybe classified as forced soddomy. If a woman forces a man to have sex with her it is classified as sexual assault. It happens. The penalty for sexual assault is much lower than that of r*pe. Worst case to date was in Australia, where a British male backpacker was picked up by a group of 6 girls, drugged, and forced to perform intercourse with them repeatedly over a number of days. He was, effectively r*ped. In the eyes of the law at the time it was only sexual assault. I forget the out come of the trial. i would be mortified to be sexually abused by 6 ladies
And here lies the issue on why it is difficult for male abuse and r*pe victims to be taken seriously
Well no he problem is with the six women thinking it's ok to drugged and sexually assault men... not he men making light of it
I wasn't talking about the act itself, I was talking about the wider perception of it by other men.
If a woman had turned round and said similar to toshn about being r*ped she'd be torn a new one because sexual assault on women is quite rightly despised yet its OK for a man to insinuate that he'd enjoy being r*ped by 6 women? How is that right? "I'm sorry how did you get this wider perception of what men think ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
