Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:Bob Costas looks like he is paying for something he did in his youth.

There is no hierarchy of abuse – that if a woman is raped [it] is much
worse than if woman has a penis exposed to her that she didn’t want or ask
for … you cannot tell those women that one is supposed to feel worse than the other.
And it certainly can’t be prescribed by a man. The idea of tone deafness is the idea
there [is] no equivalency.

Not to overly MGTOW this, but can some explain this to me? How is there no hierarchy of abuse?

Bi_3 wrote:

There is no hierarchy of abuse – that if a woman is raped [it] is much
worse than if woman has a penis exposed to her that she didn’t want or ask
for … you cannot tell those women that one is supposed to feel worse than the other.
And it certainly can’t be prescribed by a man. The idea of tone deafness is the idea
there [is] no equivalency.

Not to overly MGTOW this, but can some explain this to me? How is there no hierarchy of abuse?

I don't agree with it either, but it seems to attempt to underscore that any level of sexual abuse is unacceptable. I will say however, that i do understand the point that men dont have much validity when trying to "prescribe", as they say, what feels worse than what. there's a specific sense of humiliation that most if not all women experience as a result of any sexual misconduct that can't easily be identified with by men, even when the situation is reversed, imo. related to submissive behavior expectations most of society has of women, i dunno, maybe im reaching, but that's the general vibe it gives me...

I am of the belief that a “scale” of abuse is not helpful or useful whatsoever. Trauma is not some black and white thing that is automatically worse or less depending on the offense. People who don’t have experience with trauma generally assume that being raped at knifepoint is more traumatic than, say, being drugged and molested, but by no means is that how any of this works. Assault is assault, trauma is trauma, and every person reacts differently. It’s not helpful to try to dictate or gauge how traumatized someone should or shouldn’t be based on what type of assault happened to them.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I am of the belief that a “scale” of abuse is not helpful or useful whatsoever. Trauma is not some black and white thing that is automatically worse or less depending on the offense. People who don’t have experience with trauma generally assume that being raped at knifepoint is more traumatic than, say, being drugged and molested, but by no means is that how any of this works. Assault is assault, trauma is trauma, and every person reacts differently. It’s not helpful to try to dictate or gauge how traumatized someone should or shouldn’t be based on what type of assault happened to them.

I just wan't to point out that I completely agree with you and every word you said here.

Bi_3 wrote:

There is no hierarchy of abuse – that if a woman is raped [it] is much
worse than if woman has a penis exposed to her that she didn’t want or ask
for … you cannot tell those women that one is supposed to feel worse than the other.
And it certainly can’t be prescribed by a man. The idea of tone deafness is the idea
there [is] no equivalency.

Not to overly MGTOW this, but can some explain this to me? How is there no hierarchy of abuse?

It's called the Spectrum of Sexual Misconduct at Work (SSMW):

Non Offensive
Awkward/Mildly Offensive
Offensive
Seriously Offensive
Evident Sexual Misconduct
Egregious Sexual Misconduct

http://www.comebacksatwork.com/?p=2232

Simple Torture wrote:

wease wrote:

96583UP wrote:surprised Jim Nantz hasn't been implicated in anything

he seems like he's been around long enough to have grabbed an ass or two

Remember Marv Albert?

Yes!

malice wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

There is no hierarchy of abuse – that if a woman is raped [it] is much
worse than if woman has a penis exposed to her that she didn’t want or ask
for … you cannot tell those women that one is supposed to feel worse than the other.
And it certainly can’t be prescribed by a man. The idea of tone deafness is the idea
there [is] no equivalency.

Not to overly MGTOW this, but can some explain this to me? How is there no hierarchy of abuse?

I don't agree with it either, but it seems to attempt to underscore that any level of sexual abuse is unacceptable. I will say however, that i do understand the point that men dont have much validity when trying to "prescribe", as they say, what feels worse than what. there's a specific sense of humiliation that most if not all women experience as a result of any sexual misconduct that can't easily be identified with by men, even when the situation is reversed, imo. related to submissive behavior expectations most of society has of women, i dunno, maybe im reaching, but that's the general vibe it gives me...

Yeah, the second bit makes sense in that the particular fear and stress that is omnipresent women's experience is not something that most if any men can understand. And for sure there is no fixed scale of appropriate emotional response from a person experiencing abuse or harassment. No one has the right to assign feelings to anyone else and empathy only goes so far in understanding. I get that. I think were it breaks down for me is that there seems to be social pressure that the event should only be evaluated in the context of the most extreme emotional response to it, sometimes it seems exceeding that of the victimized person. Like the act itself has little meaning to society or the entire idea of hierarchical structure must be rejected outright, which is I think is a very bad way to approach anything. When I think of "hierarchy of abuse", I think of scenario when someone who could physically/economically/etc. dominate you offers an ultimatum like "do you want me to make fun of you or punch you in the face?" Neither is acceptable behavior, nor the situation something that we should accept a society, but I would bet that 95% of respondents would choose the verbal over the physical, which demonstrates the existence of a hierarchy. I would take one level further and apply that to how we respond legally, which in the name of fairness and justice demands a less emotional adjudication of an event. The idea that who wolf whistles at a woman on the street is the same as a gang rapist... or that it's the level of trauma experienced by the victim that should drive our response... I just can't wrap my head around that kind of thinking.

I'd like to thank simple torture for posting the gif on this page, it's made the page hell to post in from my phone

So what i think you're seeing, b_i, is a natural reaction to the newly (within this context) discovered sexual harassment being brought to light as women come forward about high profile men who take advantage of the power they wield as a result of their fame.
I believe it fairly common behavior and isn't limited to sexual abuse scenarios. We seem to typically react, as a society, in extremes at first. Because it's new in some way. my mom described it years ago as a pendulum. we swing all the way to one side and then all the way back, over and over again.
So this is extreme, and fairly militant in its wording too. And, probably, at some time in the not too distant future, a more rational, and widely agreed upon set of rules and societal norms will be established. But that only happens after the reactionary occurs. And from my perspective, BECAUSE the reactionary occurs.

In some cases, it breaks down and we go through the same cycle but i think the goal is to make some fundamental changes in how men and women regard eash other, which is taking on a lot. We're working against 1000s of years of evolutionary history, gender roles still play a really big part in all of this, and finding middle ground really depends, imo only, on everyone's ability to change how we think of one another.

Ok, i guess that's all the pronouncements from my lofty and superior position for now...

malice wrote:So what i think you're seeing, b_i, is a natural reaction to the newly (within this context) discovered sexual harassment being brought to light as women come forward about high profile men who take advantage of the power they wield as a result of their fame.
I believe it fairly common behavior and isn't limited to sexual abuse scenarios. We seem to typically react, as a society, in extremes at first. Because it's new in some way. my mom described it years ago as a pendulum. we swing all the way to one side and then all the way back, over and over again.
So this is extreme, and fairly militant in its wording too. And, probably, at some time in the not too distant future, a more rational, and widely agreed upon set of rules and societal norms will be established. But that only happens after the reactionary occurs. And from my perspective, BECAUSE the reactionary occurs.

In some cases, it breaks down and we go through the same cycle but i think the goal is to make some fundamental changes in how men and women regard eash other, which is taking on a lot. We're working against 1000s of years of evolutionary history, gender roles still play a really big part in all of this, and finding middle ground really depends, imo only, on everyone's ability to change how we think of one another.

Ok, i guess that's all the pronouncements from my lofty and superior position for now...

I hope this is right.

Could it be?

https://nypost.com/2017/12/21/eric-schm ... ng-rumors/

he is a very sexy nerd man

I don't really see most people equating wolf whistling with being a serial rapist, and wonder if that approach is letting a minority of voices speak for an entire movement. I think what is happening is there is a burgeoning recognition that the former is indeed abuse or harassment, regardless of whether or not it's on the same "level," and there are more individuals willing to step forward to tell their stories in both instances. Legally, both are obviously treated differently, so I'm don't see why that's a concern; Harvey Weinstein's in danger of criminal charges; Al Franken may be a shithead, but the cops aren't going to be knocking on his door anytime soon. However, I think there is also an understanding that it's okay for there to be consequences to both actions. Harvey Weinstein lost his job (and may or may not be charged) and so did Louis C.K. The latter may not have scaled the ugliness of the former in both severity and quantity, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have lost his job, also.

I'm dumbfounded that Ms America contestants were treated like pieces of meat.

NYT no doubt licking their chops on this one

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/23/busin ... sment.html

Unsurprisingly, Max Landis is a scumbag

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Unsurprisingly, Max Landis is a scumbag

He doesn't seem to have caused any children to be beheaded, though, so his dad might still squeak out a victory in the shitty person contest.

Miguel Sano denies assaulting photographer: 'It never happened'


Larry Brown Sports on MSN.comLarry Brown Sports on MSN.com · 19h

The Minnesota Twins third baseman has been accused of assaulting a photographer in 2015, but he says the allegations against him are baseless.

Is this really the best time to make bad sports puns?