[loramin]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's about class. And that class is economic class not a male/female dichotomy.

False. How many of these issues have you heard about with women as the antagonists? This is transparently, obviously, a male problem.

Now it's true that men can absolutely be a victim of this shit, but it's obviously on a different scale. Gay men are what, 10%? 15%? of the male population? That means women experience it 85% more (yes I know that's not technically correct, but I'm too lazy to do the proper math).

And I'm not saying that women don't have issues: they absolutely do. I'm just saying mass sexual harassment/assault isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now all that being said. It's BS that C.K is getting all the flak for something men have done for thousands of years -- like he's doing something uniquely bad that everyone agreed was wrong for a long time. But he's being a good sport about it.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

This stuff has been wrong, in a legal sense, going back over 50 years: it's not like Weinstein and Louise CK thought what they were doing was acceptable and then "shit it's the 2000's, suddenly everything I thought was ok is illegal!" Admittedly those laws weren't enforced as strongly as they are now, but that doesn't mean it's ever been ok to break them.

But that being said, I have a certain degree of sympathy for this opinion, although I have it more for Al Franken than Louis CK. Not because he's a democrat (fuck that John Conyers guy), but because at worst he touched a few women inappropriately. That's 100% not ok and the dude deserves a whole lot of flak for it ... but people like him who just did something inappropriate for a few seconds are getting lumped in with people like Weinstein who not only did what Franken did about a thousand times, but also flat out raped women.

Same thing to a lesser extent for LCK: whipping out your dick is wrong, and I think it's wrong on a whole different level from briefly touching someone's private parts ... but it's also on a whole different level from rapists or mass offenders (as bad as LCK was he's only got what 5 accusers? compared to Weinstein's 500?).

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Edit: All the effort and ideas around the concept of "protecting a girls reputation" BTW...are completely sex-negative slut shaming style statements.

Amen! Historically women were considered property, and the only way that property was worth anything was if a man could use it to get a child of their bloodline. Since they didn't have DNA testing the only way you could be "certain" that the kid was your's was to fuck a virgin (although we now know that the hymen doesn't actually work that way and that many/most women break it before their first intercourse).

If you don't believe women are property then you shouldn't shame them for having sex.