Women sexualise themselves, so men react badly
connor_a
of wearing virtually nothing in/out of the workplace: the low cut
dresses, the see thru underwear, whats it all about? ****CONTROL****
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9205890%255E28793,00.html
Its about sexist women fearing real equality and controlling mens
emotions via the sexist femininity to avoid any works of equal
everyday sacrifice.
Where is the misognyny in telling the truth>?
Hate Feminism
A picture of a woman, sitting, chest and below with legs spread wide and
panties with the words written on them saying, "This is not an invitation
to rape me"
IOW, feminists think it's ok for women to act like sluts so long as the
ogligation is on men not to react in any way whatsoever. And, if men just
happen to rape the slut...then that only confirms the feminists' belief
that "all men are rapists"...
Hm. Let's all hope society becomes one that satisfies the beliefs of your
typical Women's Studies heterophobe academic, shall we???
connor_a
> Spotted on a university campus:
>
> A picture of a woman, sitting, chest and below with legs spread wide and
> panties with the words written on them saying, "This is not an invitation
> to rape me"
>
> IOW, feminists think it's ok for women to act like sluts so long as the
> ogligation is on men not to react in any way whatsoever. And, if men just
> happen to rape the slut...then that only confirms the feminists' belief
> that "all men are rapists"...
>
> Hm. Let's all hope society becomes one that satisfies the beliefs of your
> typical Women's Studies heterophobe academic, shall we???
>
heartless creatures, but we do have feelings and I certainly don't
respect a woman if she dresses slutty, particularly in the workplace
as it creates a hostile working environment.
Jim Summers87
>heartless creatures, but we do have feelings and I certainly don't
>respect a woman if she dresses slutty, particularly in the workplace
>as it creates a hostile working environment.
What it really boils down to is that women don't want the workplace to be
non-sexualized because they would lose power. They would be judged according to
their work skill instead of their thighs.
Maybe they don't have much confidence in their work skills or perhaps career
doesn't mean as much to them as they claim because someone truly devoted to
their job wouldn't have time for silly "leaving my blouse buttons undone" power
games.......
The interesting thing is that not one single woman here will break ranks and
admit that this stuff is just cockteasing power games. It comes so naturally to
them that they are angry that we would even call them out on it.
typhonblue
"Jim Summers87" <jimsum...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040406190847...@mb-m26.aol.com...
Do you mean *here* as in, where you are?
Because I see it for what it is. There is a controversy on my campus over
the painting of a Mermaid in a mural on a wall. The Mermaid has long hair
draped over her chest and scales covering the rest of her body. I passed a
girl who said she was "so offended" by the art work. The girl was wearing a
low cut, nearly see-through shirt that revealed far more then the painting.
If she had the intelligence to reason it out she would have realized that
she was "offended" not because of the content, but because of who controlled
it. In other words, as long as a woman controls sexual power, it's fine, but
as soon as a man does (artist, photographer, etc.) it's offensive and
oppresive.
connor_a
> Do you mean *here* as in, where you are?
>
> Because I see it for what it is. There is a controversy on my campus over
> the painting of a Mermaid in a mural on a wall. The Mermaid has long hair
> draped over her chest and scales covering the rest of her body. I passed a
> girl who said she was "so offended" by the art work. The girl was wearing a
> low cut, nearly see-through shirt that revealed far more then the painting.
>
> If she had the intelligence to reason it out she would have realized that
> she was "offended" not because of the content, but because of who controlled
> it. In other words, as long as a woman controls sexual power, it's fine, but
> as soon as a man does (artist, photographer, etc.) it's offensive and
> oppresive.
Exceptional analysis! If she has power and therefore control over a
mans mind through her own sexuality then good, but don't dare 'paint'
a woman or show her up as a 'sex object' - only she can do that.
Ian
>
> A picture of a woman, sitting, chest and below with legs spread wide and
> panties with the words written on them saying, "This is not an invitation
> to rape me"
One could argue "Who cares whether it's an invitation or not?"
A man responding to a woman displaying herself sexually is
analagous with a woman making herself available to a rich
man. No law turns around and says "The woman got the man to
fuck her and now she's pregnant, but she only shagged him
for the money so she should get nothing." so I therefore
feel it's perfectly acceptable to let a man off if a woman
gave him the come on then changed her mind.
If a man's rights to his sperm end when he shoots it into
a vagina, then a woman's right to deny consent ends when
she accepts the meal.
This is the way it's always been and a few monsters like
Harriet Harman or Patricia Hewitt trying to make laws on
the subject doesn't change anything.
Women are perfectly well capable of getting the man they're
interested in's attention without arousing every other man
in the room. If they choose to arouse every other man in the
room then they're just asking for it. Jodie Foster's character
in "The Accused" where she has a gangbang in the pub WAS asking
for it, regardless of whether she changed her mind or not.
Men are not inanimate objects, they have feelings, wishes are
prime motivations too.
Conversely, when a man jumps out of a bush and fucks a bird
who hasn't accepted a meal, or some young kid, then he deserves
to get locked up for quite sometime.
All this social power politics is interesting however.
DedNdogYrs
So if a man buys some food for a homeless woman or a woman who's got nothing
after an earthquake or flood he has the right to rape her? How would you like
to have to let a gay man screw you because you accepted some food from him?
Dogs & children first.
Bob
> Spotted on a university campus:
>
> A picture of a woman, sitting, chest and below with legs spread wide and
> panties with the words written on them saying, "This is not an invitation
> to rape me"
Feminists lie.
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
Ken&Laura Chaddock
> Hate Feminism wrote:
>
>> Spotted on a university campus:
>>
>> A picture of a woman, sitting, chest and below with legs spread wide and
>> panties with the words written on them saying, "This is not an invitation
>> to rape me"
>
> Feminists lie.
It's NOT an invitation to rape her...but it should be an invitation to
charge her with sexual harassment...
In my view, if a woman, by her way of dressing or acting "incites" what
a "reasonable man" would consider to be an adverse of undesirable sexual
response, she should be open to a charge of sexual harassment....
Now in some cases (*extreme* provocation only where there was no undue
injury or violence) this should reduce a criminal rape charge to a
misdemeanor offense, punishable by a moderate fine or community service
only...and the woman would *still* be liable for a charge of sexual
harassment...
...Ken
Bob
> Bob wrote:
>
>> Hate Feminism wrote:
>>
>>> Spotted on a university campus:
>>>
>>> A picture of a woman, sitting, chest and below with legs spread wide and
>>> panties with the words written on them saying, "This is not an
>>> invitation
>>> to rape me"
>>
>>
>> Feminists lie.
>
>
> It's NOT an invitation to rape her...but it should be an invitation
> to charge her with sexual harassment...
You're right. Fucking a bitch who's askin for a fuckin is not "rape."
And you're right again, it's sexual harassment of every man who she meets.
Bob.
> In my view, if a woman, by her way of dressing or acting "incites"
> what a "reasonable man" would consider to be an adverse of undesirable
> sexual response, she should be open to a charge of sexual harassment....
> Now in some cases (*extreme* provocation only where there was no
> undue injury or violence) this should reduce a criminal rape charge to a
> misdemeanor offense, punishable by a moderate fine or community service
> only...and the woman would *still* be liable for a charge of sexual
> harassment...
>
> ...Ken
>
--
Ken&Laura Chaddock
> Ken&Laura Chaddock wrote:
>
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>>> Hate Feminism wrote:
>>>
>>>> Spotted on a university campus:
>>>>
>>>> A picture of a woman, sitting, chest and below with legs spread wide
>>>> and
>>>> panties with the words written on them saying, "This is not an
>>>> invitation
>>>> to rape me"
>>>
>>> Feminists lie.
>>
>> It's NOT an invitation to rape her...but it should be an
>> invitation to charge her with sexual harassment...
>
> You're right. Fucking a bitch who's askin for a fuckin is not "rape."
Only if YOU are the one she asking to fuck her...if you are just some
guy in the bar and she's not specifically coming onto you, then it's NOT
you who's getting the invitation and fucking her without invitation IS
rape. After all Bob, if you left the keys in your car and the motor
running while you ran in to a store...would that justify someone to just
take (steal) your car ?
If, however, her behaviour or dress are causing you sexual "distress",
you should be able to have her charged for sexual incitement or sexual
harrassment...that, I think, would be a "reasonable" response.
...Ken
Ian
> <....a woman's right to deny consent ends when she accepts the meal.>
>
> So if a man buys some food for a homeless woman or a woman who's got nothing
> after an earthquake or flood he has the right to rape her? H
It's not rape. It's repayment.
ow would you like
> to have to let a gay man screw you because you accepted some food from him?
Noone buys me food. I always pay. Come to think of it, I always
buy the beer too, thus I can safely say that if someone accepts a
drink, and it has rohypnol in it, then fair dinkum.
Rohypnol is just gods way of letting poor, short ugly men get rampant
sex with loose women too.
>
> Dogs & children first.
Hyerdahl1
>From: Bob boby...@hotmail.com
>Date: 4/7/2004 9:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <40742A89...@hotmail.com>
>
>Hate Feminism wrote:
>> Spotted on a university campus:
>>
>> A picture of a woman, sitting, chest and below with legs spread wide and
>> panties with the words written on them saying, "This is not an invitation
>> to rape me"
>
>
>Feminists lie.
What are you on about, Boob; what right do you have to rape the girl in the
ad? Think ...real hard.
>
>Bob
Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single egg-laying female ...The
workers cooperate in the food gathering, nest building and rearing offspring.
Males are reared only at times of year when their presence is required.
(Secret Life of Bees)
connor_a
> >Subject: Re: Women sexualise themselves, so men react badly
> >From: Bob boby...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 4/7/2004 9:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <40742A89...@hotmail.com>
> >
> >Hate Feminism wrote:
> >> Spotted on a university campus:
> >>
> >> A picture of a woman, sitting, chest and below with legs spread wide and
> >> panties with the words written on them saying, "This is not an invitation
> >> to rape me"
> >
> >
> >Feminists lie.
>
> What are you on about, Boob; what right do you have to rape the girl in the
> ad? Think ...real hard.
Sure and she has NO RIGHT to dress as a sexist slut; try some decency
toward men and they might act decently back.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/15/2004 11:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6688b088.04041...@posting.google.com>
Women, LIKE MEN, can dress as they please in the same appropriate venues where
men dress as THEY please. IOW, a woman might not want to wear something to
work, where there are dress codes, that she will wear to the local festival.
You just can't DICtate what she wears and that is seeming to give you some
personal problems.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/7/2004 12:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MNYcc.16942$kc2.3...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>
>Bob wrote:
>> Hate Feminism wrote:
>>
>>> Spotted on a university campus:
>>>
>>> A picture of a woman, sitting, chest and below with legs spread wide and
panties with the words written on them saying, "This is not an invitation to
rape me"
>>
>> Feminists lie.
>
It's NOT an invitation to rape her...but it should be an invitation to charge
her with sexual harassment...
Why? Are you attempting to deny women free speech in an advertising venue?
Keep in mind that there is no workplace or schoolhouse issue here.
In my view, if a woman, by her way of dressing or acting "incites" what >a
"reasonable man" would consider to be an adverse of undesirable sexual
>response, she should be open to a charge of sexual harassment....
SH doesn't apply to free speech issues in quite the same way that it applies in
the workplace or schoolhouse. You seem confused regarding the time, place and
manner restrictions under the law of free speech.
>Now in some cases (*extreme* provocation only where there was no undue
>injury or violence) this should reduce a criminal rape charge to a
>misdemeanor offense, punishable by a moderate fine or community service
>only...and the woman would *still* be liable for a charge of sexual
>harassment...
>
Hahahahaha...that's the funniest joke I've heard all morning.
>...Ken
gary
> men dress as THEY please. IOW, a woman might not want to wear something to
> work, where there are dress codes, that she will wear to the local festival.
> You just can't DICtate what she wears and that is seeming to give you some
> personal problems.
The notion of having regard for others who might be affected by your
behaviour seems to be giving you some personal problems...It's plain
to me that you are one of these people who thinks one half of the
planet are or should be automatons who shut off their feelings on
demand.
Ken&Laura Chaddock
>>Subject: Re: Women sexualise themselves, so men react badly
>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>Date: 4/7/2004 12:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> It's NOT an invitation to rape her...but it should be an invitation to charge
> her with sexual harassment...
>
> Why? Are you attempting to deny women free speech in an advertising venue?
> Keep in mind that there is no workplace or schoolhouse issue here.
Remember, men have been arrested (and charged and convicted) for
shouting at women and calling them names because it supposedly caused
"emotional trauma"...well what's good for the goose should be good for
the gander...if she causes undue "sexually emotive trauma" by her
actions, speech or dress, she should be equally liable for the harm it
causes to men...
> In my view, if a woman, by her way of dressing or acting "incites" what >a
> "reasonable man" would consider to be an adverse of undesirable sexual
> response, she should be open to a charge of sexual harassment....
>
> SH doesn't apply to free speech issues in quite the same way that it applies in
> the workplace or schoolhouse. You seem confused regarding the time, place and
> manner restrictions under the law of free speech.
all right then, further extend the definition of sexual assault to
include any act which causes undue "sexually emotive trauma"...
>>Now in some cases (*extreme* provocation only where there was no undue
>>injury or violence) this should reduce a criminal rape charge to a
>>misdemeanor offense, punishable by a moderate fine or community service
>>only...and the woman would *still* be liable for a charge of sexual
>>harassment...
>>
>
> Hahahahaha...that's the funniest joke I've heard all morning.
You fundamentally misunderstand the thrust of this discussion...we're
*not* discussing the law as it currently exists...we all *know* it
heavily favours women and is strongly biased against men...we're talking
about how it *would be* if it were fair, equitable and equally applied
to "level the playing field" in *ALL* areas and situations, not just
when it favours women to do so....
...Ken
Jim Summers87
>doesnt mean you should.
>
Women always abuse power because they have too much animal ego and too little
intellect or creativity.
Jim Summers87
>where
>men dress as THEY please.
You are too cowardly to admit that you know exactly what the woman's motive
is for wearing very revealing clothing, it's for power and control of men's
emotions...not much different than rape really......
Jim Summers87
>behaviour seems to be giving you some personal problems...It's plain
>to me that you are one of these people who thinks one half of the
>planet are or should be automatons who shut off their feelings on
>demand.
Of course, the whole world just exists for her ego and her power....forget
everyone else...this is typical of self absorbed Feminist scum these
days....and then men are supposed to cry if she gets raped?? NO THANKS.....
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/17/2004 5:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040417083008...@mb-m19.aol.com>
When we consider women and their lives and restrictions in places like
Afghanistan, we can clearly see that any intellect or creativity women have
there, has been sniffed out like the flame on a candle. I wonder why men like
you are so quick to deny women having such and equally as quick to snuff it
out. Personally, I think you're scared shitless about the intellect and
creativity women have when not oppressed. Your slip is showing, hon.
Hyerdahl1
>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>Message-id: <bT0gc.29333$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>
>Hyerdahl1 wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Women sexualise themselves, so men react badly
>>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>>Date: 4/7/2004 12:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>> It's NOT an invitation to rape her...but it should be an invitation to
>charge
>> her with sexual harassment...
>>
>> Why? Are you attempting to deny women free speech in an advertising venue?
>
>> Keep in mind that there is no workplace or schoolhouse issue here.
>
> Remember, men have been arrested (and charged and convicted) for
shouting at women and calling them names because it supposedly caused
>"emotional trauma"...
What sexual harassment case do you have to offer that is not workplace or
schoolhouse related?
well what's good for the goose should be good for >the gander...if she causes
undue "sexually emotive trauma" by her
>actions, speech or dress, she should be equally liable for the harm it
>causes to men...
>
I thought we were talking about sexual harassment cases, idiot. You seem to be
talking about some other tort action with the issue of emotional harm. Where's
your case?
>> In my view, if a woman, by her way of dressing or acting "incites" what >a
"reasonable man" would consider to be an adverse of undesirable sexual
response, she should be open to a charge of sexual harassment....
>>
>> SH doesn't apply to free speech issues in quite the same way that it>applies
in
>> the workplace or schoolhouse. You seem confused regarding the time, place
>and> manner restrictions under the law of free speech.
>
all right then, further extend the definition of sexual assault to >include any
act which causes undue "sexually emotive trauma"...
>
Hahahahahaa....I don't see that as an option. You're still an idiot. SH laws
are finely tuned to make sure that folks are not harassed out of the workplace
or schoolhouse by sexual harassment. They are not designed to control dicks.
>>>Now in some cases (*extreme* provocation only where there was no undue
>>>injury or violence) this should reduce a criminal rape charge to
a>>>misdemeanor offense, punishable by a moderate fine or community
service>>>only...and the woman would *still* be liable for a charge of sexual
>>harassment...
>>>
>>
>> Hahahahaha...that's the funniest joke I've heard all morning.
>
> You fundamentally misunderstand the thrust of this discussion...we're
>*not* discussing the law as it currently exists...we all *know* it
>heavily favours women and is strongly biased against men...we're talking
>about how it *would be* if it were fair, equitable and equally applied
>to "level the playing field" in *ALL* areas and situations, not just
>when it favours women to do so....
>
Rape is still rape, dear...and sexual harassment is still limited to the
workplace or schoolhouse. Control your own little wieners and stop expecting
women to do it for you.
>...Ken
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/16/2004 1:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9caee8d6.04041...@posting.google.com>
Oh my! Here's the thing, men have to learn how to control THEMSELVES and stop
depending on women to make things easy for them. If you want to move to a
nation where women are shrouded so that men won't have to control themselves,
move to Afghanistan or Saudi.
Jayne Kulikauskas
When I was a young women, that was certainly a key aspect of my motive for
dressing that way. I remember writing poem that had a line something like
"See me. Want me. You can't have me." in it. I can't say how frequently
this is women's motive, but I suspect it is common. Even at that age I
should have known better.
Jayne
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/17/04 5:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040417083207...@mb-m19.aol.com>
is a crime using force, coercian or lack of consent. Are you _really_
claiming men are so infantile they can't avert their eyes or control their own
dongs?
Jim Summers87
>stop
>depending on women to make things easy for them.
No, women need to stop playing silly power games and the men wouldn't react
in a way they didn't like. Are you capable of that?
Jim Summers87
>creativity women have when not oppressed.
Like buying 50 different pairs of shoes? That's intellect???
Jim Summers87
Are women so infantile that they need constant male attention? Apparently so.
> Are you _really_
>claiming men are so infantile they can't avert their eyes
They wouldn't have to avert their eyes if the women would stop seeking
excessive attention. Why do women need so much attention?? Don't you have
anything else in your life besides sexuality?
Ralph DuBose
> dednd...@aol.com (DedNdogYrs) wrote in message news:<20040407084511...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> > <....a woman's right to deny consent ends when she accepts the meal.>
> >
> > So if a man buys some food for a homeless woman or a woman who's got nothing
> > after an earthquake or flood he has the right to rape her? H
>
> It's not rape. It's repayment.
>
No way. An honest contract is one where both parties know up front
and from the start what is being traded. The whole point of con
artistry is in keeping the real terms secret.
In other wotrd, if you say,"How about it babe?" And she says, "You
have to buy me dinner first." Whatever.
But doing someone a favor/kindness and expecting that that creates
a specific obligation from them is unacceptable if you do not live in
Sicily or maybe Beirut.
Hyerdahl1
>From: jimsum...@aol.com (Jim Summers87)
>Message-id: <20040417153953...@mb-m29.aol.com>
>
>> Personally, I think you're scared shitless about the intellect
and>creativity women have when not oppressed.
>
> Like buying 50 different pairs of shoes? That's intellect???
I suppose that would depend on who's doing the buying. Oprah Winfrey, for
example, may indeed HAVE many many pairs of shoes, and yet, she has ZERO
husbands. :-)
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/17/2004 12:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <c5s05c$53813$2...@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>
Yes, but Jayne; you were only a cartoon, dear. :-) ...formed by the hand of
Dave Sim.
>
>Jayne
KrosRogue
engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
What you need to realize, since you know their motivation, is that
such females should be ignored. As you said, they do it for power and
control. Well, don't allow them to control the way you feel.
If a woman doesn't dress in a modest manner, she doesn't deserve my
attention, simply because her attire and manner show me that she has
no respect for me or my feelings. She deserves to be ignored. I have
found that many females are insulted by a man totally ignoring them,
and I have even had a few get angry at me because of it.
Learn to enjoy the control that you can have over your own feelings,
and enjoy the anger of a power-hungry female, when you have done
nothing wrong. ;-)
--
KrosRogue
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/17/2004 12:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040417153601...@mb-m29.aol.com>
I have no NEED to play power games with anyone, Jim, since my power source is
within. However, you can't control what women wear, and your desire for such
control IS a power game. If you don't like what a woman is wearing, simply
avert your eyes. That's what I do if I don't like what someone is wearing.
See how easy that is?
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/18/2004 12:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <KrosRogue20040418064630@KrosRogue>
>
> On 17 Apr 2004, (Jim Summers87)
> engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
>
>>> Women, LIKE MEN, can dress as they please in the same appropriate
venues where men dress as THEY please.
>
You are too cowardly to admit that you know exactly what the woman's
motive is for wearing very revealing clothing, it's for power and> control of
men's emotions...not much different than rape>> really......
>
>What you need to realize, since you know their motivation, is that>such
females should be ignored. As you said, they do it for power and>control. Well,
don't allow them to control the way you feel.
I agree with you, Kros, for the first time, I think. If you don't like the way
a woman is flaunting her sexuality, and you ignore her, she, and others like
her will learn they don't benefit by such exhibition. I call this learning by
cause and effect.
>>If a woman doesn't dress in a modest manner, she doesn't deserve my
>attention, simply because her attire and manner show me that she has
>no respect for me or my feelings.
Sounds like a plan. However, I'm quite sure that many, many women have no
respect for your feelings. Why should they? Do you vainly imagine that women
owe you some form of respect, just because you're a man?
She deserves to be ignored. I have
>found that many females are insulted by a man totally ignoring them,>and I
have even had a few get angry at me because of it.
I don't believe you have any experience with women, Kros, but if you did have,
I'm sure most of them would be negative, no matter what the gal was wearing.
>
>Learn to enjoy the control that you can have over your own feelings,>and enjoy
the anger of a power-hungry female, when you have done nothing wrong. ;-)
Remember, those "power-hungry" females are waiting to snatch you up, dear, just
like Kros imagines. (wink-wink)
>
>--
>KrosRogue
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/17/2004 12:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040417153908...@mb-m29.aol.com>
>
>>Are men so infantile that they rely upon women to control their emotions?
>
> Are women so infantile that they need constant male attention? Apparently
>so.
Which women? If you don't want to pay attention TO women, just say no dear.
You _can_ say no, no? :-)
> > Are you _really_>>claiming men are so infantile they can't avert their eyes
>
> They wouldn't have to avert their eyes if the women would stop
seeking>excessive attention.
But men CAN avoid their eyes if they see something they don't like, no? If I
go to the movies and there is some violent scene, I don't like, I simply look
away. Are you suggesting that women should have some duty to dress a certain
way in order to soothe men? Why can't men simply look away?
Why do women need so much attention??
Why do men? While down under this past year, there were men wearing these
little tiny shorts, some men who really didn't have the physique for it. When
I saw those men, I simply looked away. Why do you need an EYE BABYSITTER for
your dong control?
Don't you have>anything else in your life besides sexuality?
Those who cannot control themselves seek to control others.
connor_a
> >Subject: Re: Women sexualise themselves, so men react badly
> >From: jimsum...@aol.com (Jim Summers87)
> >Date: 4/17/2004 12:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <20040417153601...@mb-m29.aol.com>
> >
> >>Oh my! Here's the thing, men have to learn how to control THEMSELVES and
> stop depending on women to make things easy for them.
> >
> > No, women need to stop playing silly power games and the men wouldn't react
> >in a way they didn't like. Are you capable of that?
>
> I have no NEED to play power games with anyone, Jim, since my power source is
> within. However, you can't control what women wear, and your desire for such
> control IS a power game. If you don't like what a woman is wearing, simply
> avert your eyes. That's what I do if I don't like what someone is wearing.
> See how easy that is?
>
womens sexist power cock teasing games. RIGHT>:
Ken&Laura Chaddock
>>Subject: Re: Women sexualise themselves, so men react badly
>>From: jimsum...@aol.com (Jim Summers87)
>>Date: 4/17/2004 12:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20040417153601...@mb-m29.aol.com>
>>
>>>Oh my! Here's the thing, men have to learn how to control THEMSELVES and
>
> stop depending on women to make things easy for them.
>
>> No, women need to stop playing silly power games and the men wouldn't react
>>in a way they didn't like. Are you capable of that?
>
>
> I have no NEED to play power games with anyone, Jim, since my power source is
> within.
What gives Parg, you just implied in another post to me that you are
NOT a woman, yet here you reply to Jim as if you ARE a woman. Having a
little gender identity crisis are you ?
...Ken
KrosRogue
> Sounds like a plan. However, I'm quite sure that many, many women
> have no respect for your feelings. Why should they? Do you vainly
> imagine that women owe you some form of respect, just because you're
> a man?
I think people should behave with common decency, if they have any
respect for themselves. They should also at least act as though they
have respect for others, be they men or women. Perhaps you may not be
aware of the fact that some folk, whether they be man or woman, are
offended by some of the costumes sported these days. These costumes
are designed to be offensive, and their wearers take a perverse pride
in that fact.
> I don't believe you have any experience with women, Kros, but if you
> did have, I'm sure most of them would be negative, no matter what
> the gal was wearing.
As I have stated on many occasions, you will believe as you will in
spite of the facts.
> Remember, those "power-hungry" females are waiting to snatch you up,
> dear, just like Kros imagines. (wink-wink)
Like oil and water, mutual repulsion does not mix.
--
KrosRogue
Ian
> dra...@hotmail.com (Ian) wrote in message news:<d33ce629.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > dednd...@aol.com (DedNdogYrs) wrote in message news:<20040407084511...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> > > <....a woman's right to deny consent ends when she accepts the meal.>
> > >
> > > So if a man buys some food for a homeless woman or a woman who's got nothing
> > > after an earthquake or flood he has the right to rape her? H
> >
> > It's not rape. It's repayment.
> >
>
> No way. An honest contract is one where both parties know up front
> and from the start what is being traded. The whole point of con
> artistry is in keeping the real terms secret.
> In other wotrd, if you say,"How about it babe?" And she says, "You
> have to buy me dinner first." Whatever.
> But doing someone a favor/kindness and expecting that that creates
> a specific obligation from them is unacceptable if you do not live in
> Sicily or maybe Beirut.
>
I see, so if the man doesn't explicitly say he wants to fund her
baby making exploits, he can just walk away and let them starve.
This is your argument is it?
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/18/2004 3:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6688b088.04041...@posting.google.com>
As long as a woman working in a company is complying with the dress code, what
men think of what she is wearing is irrelevant. You can't SH a person by
wearing something they may not like.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/18/2004 11:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <KrosRogue20040419063003@KrosRogue>
>
> On 18 Apr 2004, (Hyerdahl1)
> engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
>
>> Sounds like a plan. However, I'm quite sure that many, many women> have no
respect for your feelings. Why should they? Do you vainly> imagine that women
owe you some form of respect, just because you're> a man?
>
>I think people should behave with common decency, if they have any
>respect for themselves.
Well, I agree, but we don't tend to ONLY enforce one brand of "decency" against
one social group. If you don't believe that men behave indently, feel free to
remain in denial.
They should also at least act as though they>have respect for others, be they
men or women.
So then, here, in this ng, you appear to be interested in condemning women
while not talking about what men do that is "indecent". Ok, but what does that
actually prove?
Perhaps you may not be>aware of the fact that some folk, whether they be man
or woman, are offended by some of the costumes sported these days.
You mean like those short, short Aussie shorts the men like to wear...or
speedos?
:-)
These costumes>are designed to be offensive, and their wearers take a perverse
pride>in that fact.
>
What "costumes"? Women enjoy wearing many different colors, textures and
fashions and don't generally consider them "costumes".
>> I don't believe you have any experience with women, Kros, but if you
did have, I'm sure most of them would be negative, no matter what>> the gal
was wearing.
>
>As I have stated on many occasions, you will believe as you will in>spite of
the facts.
>
What facts? You haven't presented any.
>> Remember, those "power-hungry" females are waiting to snatch you up,
dear, just like Kros imagines. (wink-wink)
>
>Like oil and water, mutual repulsion does not mix.
At least oil and water is factual, Kros; you are all opinion alone.
>
>--
>KrosRogue
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/18/2004 6:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <shGgc.30122$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
My debate points don't rely on me being male or female per se, Ken. I'm simply
suggesting that my own power source is within and that I don't need to play any
power games. He WAS talking to me, no?
AND, I notice you have nothing to say about men being responsible for their own
dick arousal.
>
>...Ken
KrosRogue
>> I think people should behave with common decency, if they have any
>> respect for themselves.
> Well, I agree, but we don't tend to ONLY enforce one brand of
> "decency" against one social group. If you don't believe that men
> behave indently, feel free to remain in denial.
Reread what I said. The word "people" is not gender-specific.
>> They should also at least act as though they have respect for
>> others, be they men or women.
> So then, here, in this ng, you appear to be interested in condemning
> women while not talking about what men do that is "indecent". Ok,
> but what does that actually prove?
Prove? I am not trying to prove anything. A comment was made
specifically about the behavior of some women, to which I responded.
If you would note, I also generalized it to encompass both men and
women.
>> Perhaps you may not be aware of the fact that some folk, whether
>> they be man or woman, are offended by some of the costumes sported
>> these days.
> You mean like those short, short Aussie shorts the men like to
> wear...or speedos? :-)
*Some* men like to wear them. I don't.
--
KrosRogue
Jim Summers87
>simply
>suggesting that my own power source is within and that I don't need to play
>any
>power games.
If this was true you wouldn't need to be an angry Feminist CUNT either.....all
Feminists are playing power games and are unhappy within.
connor_a
Since the Hyerdahl can't attract a man sexually let alone give him a
'stiffy', its only avenue is to rage out on usenet harassing other men
who also suprisingly aren't interested in the slightest.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/20/2004 12:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <KrosRogue20040420065810@KrosRogue>
>
> On 19 Apr 2004, (Hyerdahl1)
> engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
>
>>> I think people should behave with common decency, if they have any
>>> respect for themselves.
>
>> Well, I agree, but we don't tend to ONLY enforce one brand of> "decency"
against one social group. If you don't believe that men> behave indently, feel
free to remain in denial.
>
>Reread what I said. The word "people" is not gender-specific.
Yes, but your original criticism was geared toward women, no?
>
>>> They should also at least act as though they have respect for>> others, be
they men or women.
>
>> So then, here, in this ng, you appear to be interested in condemning> women
while not talking about what men do that is "indecent". Ok,> but what does
that actually prove?
>
>Prove? I am not trying to prove anything. A comment was made>specifically
about the behavior of some women, to which I responded.
Kros, your negative comments ONLY directed to the behavior of women speaks your
sexism since both social groups exhibit behavior that could be labeled
"indecent". And, women still have no greater duty than men to dress a certain
way in order to not arouse men.
That is my take on this.
>If you would note, I also generalized it to encompass both men and
>women.
So then, where is your criticism of the "indecent" behavior of men you would
like to challenge? Give us an example, since you claim your comments are not
geared to women.
>
>>> Perhaps you may not be aware of the fact that some folk, whether>>> they be
man or woman, are offended by some of the costumes sported
>>> these days.
>
>> You mean like those short, short Aussie shorts the men like to> wear...or
speedos? :-)
>
>*Some* men like to wear them. I don't.
>
I'm still waiting for your equal criticism of men; I don't see it.
>--
>KrosRogue
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/20/2004 3:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040420061048...@mb-m15.aol.com>
>
>>My debate points don't rely on me being male or female per se, Ken. I'm
>simply>suggesting that my own power source is within and that I don't need to
play>any>>power games.
>
> If this was true you wouldn't need to be an angry Feminist CUNT>either.
I'm not angry. :-)
....all>Feminists are playing power games and are unhappy within.
....within patriarchy. Feminists today don't have to worry about patriarchy;
it reminds them of an old man's saging flaccid unit.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/6/04 6:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <yvIcc.39006$oR5.16077@pd7tw3no>>news:20040406190847...@mb-m26.aol.com...
>> >Femininsts like to think men don't have emotions, the men are heartless
creatures, but we do have feelings and I certainly don't respect a woman if she
dresses slutty, particularly in the workplace>as it creates a hostile working
environment.
>>
>> What it really boils down to is that women don't want the workplace to
>be> non-sexualized because they would lose power. They would be judged
>according to their work skill instead of their thighs.
>>
>> Maybe they don't have much confidence in their work skills or perhaps
>career> doesn't mean as much to them as they claim because someone truly
devote>to
>> their job wouldn't have time for silly "leaving my blouse buttons undone"
>power
>> games.......
>>
>> The interesting thing is that not one single woman here will break
>ranks and
>> admit that this stuff is just cockteasing power games. It comes so
>naturally to
>> them that they are angry that we would even call them out on it.
>
>Do you mean *here* as in, where you are?
>
>Because I see it for what it is. There is a controversy on my campus over
>the painting of a Mermaid in a mural on a wall. The Mermaid has long hair
>draped over her chest and scales covering the rest of her body. I passed a
>girl who said she was "so offended" by the art work. The girl was wearing a
>low cut, nearly see-through shirt that revealed far more then the painting.
>
>If she had the intelligence to reason it out she would have realized that
>she was "offended" not because of the content, but because of who controlled
>it. In other words, as long as a woman controls sexual power, it's fine, but
>as soon as a man does (artist, photographer, etc.) it's offensive and
>oppresive.
>
>
>Here's the real deal; either the company HAS a dress code or they don't. As
long as the women and men are complying with the dress code, there is little
possibility issue of sexual harassment regarding dress.