Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Canadian_watcher wrote:I detest the argument that makes it the female's imperative to preserve the egos of men who approach them.
Canadian_watcher wrote:
I detest the argument that makes it the female's imperative to preserve the egos of men who approach them. Especially when that argument is couched in terms of concern for the female's personal security.
This is mostly about ego, if that weren't plainly obvious from the Karaoke napkin number story.
IanEye wrote:At AVN this year, a guy grabbed my forearm while I was walking from the elevators to Digital Playground's booth. He let go when I punched him in the testicle area. There's an average of three people per convention who try the more subtle approach of sliding their hand a bit too far down my back when I stand next to them for a photo. Every single one of them apologizes when I gently put their hand back where it belongs and ask them to remember that I am not a blow up doll.
The above paragraph is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, compared to what it's like to be a girl or woman walking around in public in broad daylight. With dirty hair up in a ponytail or bun, no makeup, and baggy clothing on. With headphones in, sitting in a coffee shop or on the subway with your nose in a book, or talking on the phone.
http://jezebel.com/5941068/im-a-porn-star-and-if-you-harass-me-i-will-punch-you-in-the-balls
82_28 wrote:
See that's what's fucked up about it all.
.
I'm just speaking overall.
.
We live in the real world -- ideals and all.
barracuda wrote:Take your inane perspective to a men's rights forum or start your own thread, you misguided individual. You don't even have the wherewithal to defend your own misguided statements, or apparently to even try to. You're disrupting the thread. Get lost, troll. Be gone.
jlaw172364 wrote:Wow. This conversation is still going on. You know, it's a lot easier to agree with whatever people say, but since the social consequences of speaking your mind are nil on here, I may as well. It's interesting to me that someone would bother to quote a porn star, who makes her living exploiting the hard-wired biological impulses of lonely males staring into their computer screens. The people that bother to go to those events expecting any kind of human connection are mentally ill, but it's still amusing that the exploiter expects to have her cake and eat it too. It's all very fine and well for the creeps to shell out their money buying her taudry products, but god forbid they actually touch her, even though her product is all about creating the illusion of sexual availability. Can you say occupational hazard, Stoya, I knew you could? Lumping Stoya in with women who don't do anything remotely resembling soliciting sexual interest does not help the argument.
And I'm sure the people that attack me on here think that only women are being exploited when pornography is made, or that they are the chief victims. It's kind of like saying that pushers, petty peddlers, or other low level drug cartel minions are the primary victims of the drug war, and not the lost souls they sell to.
Hey, maybe if you continue white-knighting Stoya, she'll mail you a pair of her panties!
jlaw172364 wrote:It's interesting to me that someone would bother to quote a porn star, who makes her living exploiting the hard-wired biological impulses of lonely males staring into their computer screens.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests