Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Nanny state is all set to make sexist remarks and wolf-whistles criminal offences   (guardian.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Stupid, nanny state, sexisms  
•       •       •

7001 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2012 at 3:53 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-09-09 07:31:44 PM  

Gyrfalcon: On the flip side, I have to say people don't really get what goes on in a relationship--even the victims of domestic violence and abuse. They know "something" is wrong, and yet either they or (more likely) society doesn't have the vocabulary to explain what that "something" is.I used to volunteer at a DV court project--we were helping victims write up their requests for a TRO. Now, a pro se complaint has to be pretty specific, because the whole point of a TRO is that the complainant is asking for a court order without having to notice the other party, and it has to be evident to the judge that there is a real threat, so severe that the complainant was justified in asking for a TRO before the injunction hearing.And yet time after time, these women and men would come in and be completely unable to tell me what exactly was going on that they wanted a TRO. "He just scares me when he yells and slams the door." Or, "She's said some things that make me worry our kids aren't safe." But WHAT, exactly? When and why? "Oh, just sometimes." It was obvious that something was in fact wrong, and yet people couldn't be more specific. In fact, you could tell the fakes and people trying to get even because they'd have a litany of totally impossible things their ex or spouse had done all ready to go...it was the ones who said "Just something's off, you know?" that I really worried about.


I am certain you understand that TROs are widely abused in divorce and custody proceedings, and that while many Internet Forum lawyers claim they never do it, and have never heard of it being done, it's very easy for a lawyer to strongly hint or suggest to their client that a history of violence and a TRO would be in their benefit.

Anyway, in Phoenix, the county medical facility and the courts now allow TRO by videoconference: Link which takes place after the victim and her advocate have had days to discuss the issue, they then videoconference with a judge who listens to them and can print out at their site a TRO on the spot.

I think this is a great idea and should save the taxpayers a lot of time and money required for courtrooms and bailiffs, stenographers, etc.
 
2012-09-09 07:39:52 PM  
Ask a woman what she's reading = death by lethal injection.
 
2012-09-09 07:40:50 PM  

Moonlightfox: MadAzza: Walker: Another clause would outlaw "psychological violence" - defined as "seriously impairing a person's psychological integrity through coercion or threats"

And how exactly do you prove in court that someone's "psychological integrity" has been impaired? Good luck with that. Say what you will about America, but at least we have Freedom of Speech here. Most other countries don't.

And there's yet another U.S. American who has no idea what "freedom of speech" means.

Another European Liberal who doesn't know what "slippery slope" means.


Nothing you wrote makes any sense, but as long as you had fun, that's good enough.
 
2012-09-09 08:08:09 PM  
The problem I have with making it illegal to hit on women is that there is that I don't hit on women, they just assume I am.

It's like when I go to a grocery store and hit the checkouts... girl behind the counter thinks she has to act like a total biatch just so I don't get the wrong idea...

"Actually, I am just here to buy groceries. Isn't the 48 cans of cat food obvious enough?"
 
2012-09-09 08:32:10 PM  

wjmorris3: OgreMagi: wjmorris3: BigNumber12: Pincy: OgreMagi: With this law, any attempt at hitting on a woman could get you arrested.

I guess I don't understand exactly what "hitting on a woman" means? So it would be illegal to approach a woman and start a conversation? It would be illegal to ask her out on a date? It would be illegal to compliment her on her appearance?


All she'd have to do is claim that your manner was "threatening" or "suggestive," and people would be falling all over themselves to punish you. Remember, all the court would have to go on is her word against yours, and your gender is the malicious rapey gender, so you're automatically less trustworthy.

Are you implying this is a bad thing? This seems perfectly acceptable to this male.

Please report the the Men's Association and turn in your penis. You will be outfitted with a vagina as soon as the appropriate paperwork has been completed.

It's called respecting women.


The proposed law is so vague that anything you might say could be considered harassment. And to accept that we men should be considered less trustworthy for the simple fact that we possess a penis implies a serious cognitive disorder.
 
2012-09-09 08:38:58 PM  

OgreMagi: wjmorris3: OgreMagi: wjmorris3: BigNumber12: Pincy: OgreMagi: With this law, any attempt at hitting on a woman could get you arrested.

I guess I don't understand exactly what "hitting on a woman" means? So it would be illegal to approach a woman and start a conversation? It would be illegal to ask her out on a date? It would be illegal to compliment her on her appearance?


All she'd have to do is claim that your manner was "threatening" or "suggestive," and people would be falling all over themselves to punish you. Remember, all the court would have to go on is her word against yours, and your gender is the malicious rapey gender, so you're automatically less trustworthy.

Are you implying this is a bad thing? This seems perfectly acceptable to this male.

Please report the the Men's Association and turn in your penis. You will be outfitted with a vagina as soon as the appropriate paperwork has been completed.

It's called respecting women.

The proposed law is so vague that anything you might say could be considered harassment. And to accept that we men should be considered less trustworthy for the simple fact that we possess a penis implies a serious cognitive disorder.


Again, there's nothing wrong with the law.
 
2012-09-09 08:44:35 PM  

wjmorris3: BigNumber12: Pincy: OgreMagi: With this law, any attempt at hitting on a woman could get you arrested.

I guess I don't understand exactly what "hitting on a woman" means? So it would be illegal to approach a woman and start a conversation? It would be illegal to ask her out on a date? It would be illegal to compliment her on her appearance?


All she'd have to do is claim that your manner was "threatening" or "suggestive," and people would be falling all over themselves to punish you. Remember, all the court would have to go on is her word against yours, and your gender is the malicious rapey gender, so you're automatically less trustworthy.

Are you implying this is a bad thing? This seems perfectly acceptable to this male.



Not sure if serious. If so, congratulations on completing your conditioning and becoming part of the problem.
 
2012-09-09 08:45:50 PM  

ChuDogg: wjmorris3:

[img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com image 686x572]



I gave him a bite. Sorry...
 
2012-09-09 08:46:23 PM  
I've got the perfect idea.

At every woman's 18th birthday, have the government provide her with a semi-automatic handgun. Give one to all women over 18 as well. Make sure every woman has a government-supplied gun on her person at all times.

Then, give women free reign to shoot any man who:
-compliments her
-asks her what she's reading
-smiles and says hello
-whistles at her
-etc.

But the license doesn't stop there; that's just the beginning.

See a guy whom you think is unattractive? Bang. Shoot him dead. There's a guy who doesn't have enough tattoos and is actually clean-shaven...Bang. Eliminate him now. Ask a man how much money he makes. If the figure he states (which must be supported by a paystub) is not to your liking, Bang. He's gone. Ask a guy what he does for a living. If there isn't a sufficient level of power involved, Bang. See a total gang-sign flashing, duck-face-making douchebag walking down the street...put the gun away because we all know how much women love and adore douchebags.

This way, you'll weed out all the undesirable males from the population, and all that will be left are rich men, powerful men, douchebags, and rich powerful douchebags.

Once this task is accomplished, you farking biatches can rejoice and feel safe knowing that the only men who interact with you are men you would actually want to interact with.

No more men who are clean-cut, polite, gracious, ugly, broke,...just the rich, powerful bastards who will give you all the material things and the glamorous lifestyle you crave. And the best part of this idea is that Darwin will do his part! When you fark your rich douchebag husband, your offspring will inherit all your wealth and/or power and/or douchiness. Generation by generation the world will become a utopia for all you coonts, instead of this terrifying place where 95% of all men who speak to you immediately get your vaginas all sandy.

I truly believe this is the perfect solution, and I'm willing to be the first to leave the planet to prove it. To any woman who deems me unworthy to live on earth v2.0, EIP. I'll tell you where I can live so you can blow my farking head off. After all, you're the fairer sex--heaven forbid I'd ruin any of your lives by attempting to interact with you.
 
2012-09-09 08:47:36 PM  

wjmorris3: OgreMagi: wjmorris3: OgreMagi: wjmorris3: BigNumber12: Pincy: OgreMagi: With this law, any attempt at hitting on a woman could get you arrested.

I guess I don't understand exactly what "hitting on a woman" means? So it would be illegal to approach a woman and start a conversation? It would be illegal to ask her out on a date? It would be illegal to compliment her on her appearance?


All she'd have to do is claim that your manner was "threatening" or "suggestive," and people would be falling all over themselves to punish you. Remember, all the court would have to go on is her word against yours, and your gender is the malicious rapey gender, so you're automatically less trustworthy.

Are you implying this is a bad thing? This seems perfectly acceptable to this male.

Please report the the Men's Association and turn in your penis. You will be outfitted with a vagina as soon as the appropriate paperwork has been completed.

It's called respecting women.

The proposed law is so vague that anything you might say could be considered harassment. And to accept that we men should be considered less trustworthy for the simple fact that we possess a penis implies a serious cognitive disorder.

Again, there's nothing wrong with the law.


You simply have to be trolling because I can't believe that anyone could be so stupid to accept a law that would make even perfectly innocent remarks a criminal offense.
 
2012-09-09 08:49:55 PM  

wjmorris3: respect


disrespect is not a crime.
 
2012-09-09 08:55:36 PM  

OgreMagi: wjmorris3: OgreMagi: wjmorris3: OgreMagi: wjmorris3: BigNumber12: Pincy: OgreMagi: With this law, any attempt at hitting on a woman could get you arrested.

I guess I don't understand exactly what "hitting on a woman" means? So it would be illegal to approach a woman and start a conversation? It would be illegal to ask her out on a date? It would be illegal to compliment her on her appearance?


All she'd have to do is claim that your manner was "threatening" or "suggestive," and people would be falling all over themselves to punish you. Remember, all the court would have to go on is her word against yours, and your gender is the malicious rapey gender, so you're automatically less trustworthy.

Are you implying this is a bad thing? This seems perfectly acceptable to this male.

Please report the the Men's Association and turn in your penis. You will be outfitted with a vagina as soon as the appropriate paperwork has been completed.

It's called respecting women.

The proposed law is so vague that anything you might say could be considered harassment. And to accept that we men should be considered less trustworthy for the simple fact that we possess a penis implies a serious cognitive disorder.

Again, there's nothing wrong with the law.

You simply have to be trolling because I can't believe that anyone could be so stupid to accept a law that would make even perfectly innocent remarks a criminal offense.


Dude, his handle is WILLIAM J. MORRIS. It has to be a troll.
 
2012-09-09 08:56:22 PM  

OgreMagi: wjmorris3: OgreMagi: wjmorris3: BigNumber12: Pincy: OgreMagi: With this law, any attempt at hitting on a woman could get you arrested.

I guess I don't understand exactly what "hitting on a woman" means? So it would be illegal to approach a woman and start a conversation? It would be illegal to ask her out on a date? It would be illegal to compliment her on her appearance?


All she'd have to do is claim that your manner was "threatening" or "suggestive," and people would be falling all over themselves to punish you. Remember, all the court would have to go on is her word against yours, and your gender is the malicious rapey gender, so you're automatically less trustworthy.

Are you implying this is a bad thing? This seems perfectly acceptable to this male.

Please report the the Men's Association and turn in your penis. You will be outfitted with a vagina as soon as the appropriate paperwork has been completed.

It's called respecting women.

The proposed law is so vague that anything you might say could be considered harassment. And to accept that we men should be considered less trustworthy for the simple fact that we possess a penis implies a serious cognitive disorder.



Forget it, he's trolling.
 
2012-09-09 08:56:27 PM  

Lord Summerisle: I love it when Americans call Britain the Nanny State.

America! The country which has the death penalty, torture camps, draconian laws, heavily-armed and violent paramilitary police, for-profit prisons, eminent domain, three-strike laws and literally millions of prisoners!

The cognitive dissonance must be off the scale.


These are all gifts from liberalism. No one except themselves thought they were very smart. If you trace back each of the items you mention, you will find them to be the unintended consequences of liberal stupidity.

The Death Penalty was history, and libs started complaining that Charlie Manson had it too tough in jail. So he got cable TV, aircon, cohab visits, weight rooms, union, (and bribeable) guards, all the mod cons. 20 years later, the Death Penalty is back. Gee, I wonder why?

It's the same with all the rest. Where ever Liberalism tries to "improve" things, it ALWAYS gets worse.

Of course, when someone shoots a burglar here, they don't go to jail...

 
2012-09-09 08:57:09 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Dude, his handle is WILLIAM J. MORRIS. It has to be a troll.


He's clearly a troll, but what am I missing about the name!?
 
2012-09-09 09:04:16 PM  

Lord Summerisle: I love it when Americans call Britain the Nanny State.

America! The country which has the death penalty, torture camps, draconian laws, heavily-armed and violent paramilitary police, for-profit prisons, eminent domain, three-strike laws and literally millions of prisoners!

The cognitive dissonance must be off the scale.


Yes, but we have FreedomTM*

*Offer does not apply to black and latino males, the working class, some women, LGBT people, and immigrants.
 
2012-09-09 09:18:48 PM  
Ok, let's make wolf-whistles a criminal offense. Fine. Let's outlaw free speech.

And if that still doesn't work? Let's do the most obvious and most effective thing that everybody is nonetheless too frightened to contemplate: Pass a law which requires neurotic and easily-offended women to grow some thicker skin.
 
2012-09-09 09:25:47 PM  

Voxper: Ok, let's make wolf-whistles a criminal offense. Fine. Let's outlaw free speech.

And if that still doesn't work? Let's do the most obvious and most effective thing that everybody is nonetheless too frightened to contemplate: Pass a law which requires neurotic and easily-offended women to grow some thicker skin.


No, that would be misogynistic.
 
2012-09-09 09:30:19 PM  

Voxper: Ok, let's make wolf-whistles a criminal offense. Fine. Let's outlaw free speech.

And if that still doesn't work? Let's do the most obvious and most effective thing that everybody is nonetheless too frightened to contemplate: Pass a law which requires neurotic and easily-offended women to grow some thicker skin.


Same thing for all the manly men out there who think gay guys are going to turn them gay.
 
2012-09-09 09:53:10 PM  

wjmorris3: Voxper: Ok, let's make wolf-whistles a criminal offense. Fine. Let's outlaw free speech.

And if that still doesn't work? Let's do the most obvious and most effective thing that everybody is nonetheless too frightened to contemplate: Pass a law which requires neurotic and easily-offended women to grow some thicker skin.

No, that would be misogynistic.


It usually isn't the attractive women that will complain about this type of 'harrassement'.
 
2012-09-09 09:57:13 PM  
FTA: Overall, the convention was largely modelled on UK laws and practices, but signing it would help protect Britain's high standards, said Scotland.

That was meant to be a joke right?
 
2012-09-09 10:09:04 PM  
Well, since the athe-feminists want to make asking a woman out for coffee a criminal offense...
 
2012-09-09 10:25:22 PM  
Its so sad.:( Whatever happened to the Great Briton that stood alone and told Adolf Hitler "To Go Get Bent".
 
2012-09-09 10:40:15 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Amigajoe: If I hadn't read that Jezebel story from further down I'd snark too. But I guess I kind of get it.

That stuff was pretty messed up. Sadly, I hear kind of similar stories from some of my female friends. Nothing that intense, usually, but the same brand of stupid and pointless over-aggression from knuckle-dragging guys (I refuse to use the word men to describe this kind of scum). One of my better female friends is a lesbian, and she makes no attempt to hide it. She works out a lot so she has a good body, but she never shaves, cuts her hair like a man, even wears mostly men's clothes----and STILL gets relentlessly hit on. She even tells them she's a lesbian, and that doesn't deter these guys.

I just can't fathom what's going through guys' minds when they behave like that. That said, the second guy in your link was clearly in need of mental help, and he needed to be arrested and given the treatment he needs.

That said, I'm not sure if actually outlawing more benign forms of unwanted flirtation is a good idea. Where is the line between shutting up potentially dangerous idiots and impinging on free speech?


The line is drawn at the point that the unwanted speech is a threat or tangibly causing hurt. The former is obviously wrong and the latter is damned hard to do.

Like it or not our culture is one where if a man does not aggressively try to pick up a girl, he isn't going to get a girl except in a few fringe cases.

Because of the fact that you can't be a successful man (from the perspective of getting a mate), if you don't act in the expected manner other guys will develop contempt for the 'failing' male. It is often subconscious, but it is there. So this just perpetuates a situation where the only way to not only get laid, but remain out of omega male status is to aggressively pursue women (at least in front of the guys)

Women, if you want to help humanity, the solution is that you need to go out there and sleep with the less aggressive men, and you will have to do it now and with gusto.
 
2012-09-09 10:58:55 PM  

kim jong-un: HMS_Blinkin: Amigajoe: If I hadn't read that Jezebel story from further down I'd snark too. But I guess I kind of get it.

That stuff was pretty messed up. Sadly, I hear kind of similar stories from some of my female friends. Nothing that intense, usually, but the same brand of stupid and pointless over-aggression from knuckle-dragging guys (I refuse to use the word men to describe this kind of scum). One of my better female friends is a lesbian, and she makes no attempt to hide it. She works out a lot so she has a good body, but she never shaves, cuts her hair like a man, even wears mostly men's clothes----and STILL gets relentlessly hit on. She even tells them she's a lesbian, and that doesn't deter these guys.

I just can't fathom what's going through guys' minds when they behave like that. That said, the second guy in your link was clearly in need of mental help, and he needed to be arrested and given the treatment he needs.

That said, I'm not sure if actually outlawing more benign forms of unwanted flirtation is a good idea. Where is the line between shutting up potentially dangerous idiots and impinging on free speech?

The line is drawn at the point that the unwanted speech is a threat or tangibly causing hurt. The former is obviously wrong and the latter is damned hard to do.

Like it or not our culture is one where if a man does not aggressively try to pick up a girl, he isn't going to get a girl except in a few fringe cases.

Because of the fact that you can't be a successful man (from the perspective of getting a mate), if you don't act in the expected manner other guys will develop contempt for the 'failing' male. It is often subconscious, but it is there. So this just perpetuates a situation where the only way to not only get laid, but remain out of omega male status is to aggressively pursue women (at least in front of the guys)

Women, if you want to help humanity, the solution is that you need to go out there and sleep with the less agg ...


This is kind of sad and signals a decline of humanity. I'm in my 50's and enjoy the exchange. I remember being hit on in my younger days. My favorite was "See this face? It leaves town in 20 minutes, be on it".
There is an almost artistic skill to flirting and seduction which has been lost or cheapend with internet and twitter and the like, Again, it's not the attractive women that complain about this 'sexist' behaviour. It is usually the unattractive that decide to take up the 'cause'.
 
2012-09-09 11:20:36 PM  

Gyrfalcon:
I wonder what I've done wrong in my life that I never get hassled by men...or women...unless I want them to.


Strange. I'm the same way. And I"m not too hideous.
 
2012-09-09 11:26:10 PM  

LewDux: It's political correctness gone mad. You can't even write misogynist abuse in excrement on someone's vW Tiguan without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat


You laugh, but this aims to equate your situation with whistling at a g

cman: The biggest problem with these criminal laws is that intent is never taken into consideration, only perception of the party is considered.

You cannot criminalize things like this. Its insane.


Farking this.

What if some Brit unknowingly winks or smiles at some angry feminist in the street, or chances to flirt with some neurotic zealot in a queue? How can he tell if she's going to feel "harassed" or not? One could be saddled with a serious criminal record for normal human behaviour.

If populations get the society they deserve, insane people deserve insane societies.
 
2012-09-09 11:28:20 PM  
I hate when I forget to preview a comment. Started replying to one, got sidetracked by another...

Oh well, let my humiliation be a lesson to us all.
 
2012-09-09 11:35:29 PM  

kim jong-un: Like it or not our culture is one where if a man does not aggressively try to pick up an extremely hot girl, he isn't going to get a girl except in a few fringe cases.


/i'm not extremely hot, what right have i to expect a higher standard from my lover?

//bitter & would give anything to sleep with a hot girl, just once
 
2012-09-09 11:47:55 PM  
I don't really know about this law and I'm not going to comment on it really. However, on the topic of men hitting on women in public, I just want to say that for me at least it isn't about being hit on, it's about being either followed or being constantly badgered after I've said no. I have dozens of stories about this happening when I used to live in a city and walked or took public transportation everywhere. It became a non-issue after moving out of the city and getting a car and driving places (or maybe because I was no longer 14-24). Either way, some guys are relentless asses about the whole thing and some get really angry when you reject them. Of course I never had any incidents where I would consider pressing charges against anyone, but it definitely made me more guarded when I went out in public after so many incidents. I was just not comfortable being hit on/asked out by strangers. Of course it didn't help that 75% of the time they were clearly 10+ years older than me and many were middle-aged or older. That's just the creepy ick factor. I was a lot more receptive to guys my age, but I never dated anyone who approached me on the street.
 
2012-09-09 11:48:09 PM  
I'm OK with this... It's a form of sexual harassment.
It's a shame that such a thing needs to be codified into law. But a woman should be able to walk in public without being harassed by catcalls or wolf-whistles or lewd comments about her body.

Would you want that done to your sister? Your mother? Your daughter? Every woman is someone's daughter. Someone's sister. Perhaps even someone's mother. It's not right. Treat a woman as if she was a beloved member of your family. Not as a pair of tits or piece of ass.
 
2012-09-09 11:49:00 PM  
When I was younger and much fitter, I worked in a convenience store in the part of town with all the gay bars. I was constantly hit on, yet just let it slide with a laugh or a joke.

"Sorry, I don't have the social skills to be gay" etc.

If I acted like one of these outraged women, I would have been labelled homophobic and sacked.

The "rules" of protected classes are too complex these days. I wish we just had equality. Speaking of which, how about we start treating women's rights groups with the same level of respect they have for men's rights groups? That'd be a hoot and a holler.
 
2012-09-10 12:11:15 AM  
Mambo Bananapatch: What if some Brit unknowingly winks or smiles at some angry feminist in the street, or chances to flirt with some neurotic zealot in a queue? How can he tell if she's going to feel "harassed" or not? One could be saddled with a serious criminal record for normal human behaviour.

I think people need to step-back and have a look at what sexual harassment was originally supposed to be about: protecting a woman from a situation where the boss says something like: "Suck my dick if you want that promotion." And, lets face it, any reasonable person would agree that's a serious issue that people need to be protected against. Yeah, that deserves to be punished, no question.

But what's harassment morphed into since then? Now it's used to punish petty slights and dirty jokes and ill-timed complements. 'Harassment' is now bullcrap like: "He made me uncomfortable!" It's a joke now.

Imagine if traffic law was like sexual harassment: You'd get a ticket if another person feels your Subaru was going too fast. Then, a minute later, a Ferrari could zoom-by and the same person would 'oooh' and 'aahh' because it looks so cool.
 
2012-09-10 12:23:03 AM  

Mambo Bananapatch: //bitter & would give anything to sleep with a hot girl, just once


I hate to say this, but that's just sad.
 
2012-09-10 12:48:58 AM  
Being an ugly farker, I'm glad I don't live over there. Most women are offended by my very existence.
 
2012-09-10 12:50:09 AM  

Lord Summerisle: I love it when Americans call Britain the Nanny State.

America! The country which has the death penalty, torture camps, draconian laws, heavily-armed and violent paramilitary police, for-profit prisons, eminent domain, three-strike laws and literally millions of prisoners!

The cognitive dissonance must be off the scale.


And not one of those things has anything to do with what "nanny state" refers to.

Also, I'm going to start taking a drink every time I read "cognitive dissonance" on fark. It needs to be fark's new slogan, right there on the banner.
 
2012-09-10 01:08:39 AM  
Oh_Enough_Already : This is also the "party platform" of most ardent feminist types, and something they regularly say about men.

Not ALL feminists are like that! Remember: Feminism is not a monolithic whole.

Oddly, this same rule doesn't apply when you praise feminism. Feminism IS a monolithic whole when you have good things to say about it.

Funny how that logic goes, eh? Why, it's almost as if a lot of so-called feminists rely on greasy, dishonest forms of argumentation.
 
2012-09-10 01:13:01 AM  

RoyBatty: Gyrfalcon: Dude, his handle is WILLIAM J. MORRIS. It has to be a troll.

He's clearly a troll, but what am I missing about the name!?


(psst,the cigarette manufacturers? Nobody takes them seriously)
 
2012-09-10 01:14:18 AM  
This will meet with approval until some MP finally figures out it will shut down all his favorite strip clubs.
 
2012-09-10 01:54:20 AM  

skwerl: When I was in preschool I remember the very first time I got in trouble. It was nap time and we were required to keep our heads down and stay silent. I said 'hi' to the girl next to me and got in trouble for using bad language (curse words). At 4½ years old I learned about being unjustly punished for saying something that I didn't even say.


"Ram it up your pimhole you fusking clod hopper" gets me in trouble, still.

/lulz
 
2012-09-10 02:29:45 AM  

Lord Summerisle: I love it when Americans call Britain the Nanny State.

America! The country which has the death penalty, torture camps, draconian laws, heavily-armed and violent paramilitary police, for-profit prisons, eminent domain, three-strike laws and literally millions of prisoners!

The cognitive dissonance must be off the scale.


This!
 
2012-09-10 02:42:19 AM  

chuckufarlie: FREEDOM - that is why my ancestors left Europe 300 years ago.


I wonder if the Native Americans whose land was stolen from them and were slaughtered in the process, have the same view?
 
2012-09-10 02:50:52 AM  
I wonder why the Patriarchy keeps passing laws like this. Must be to preserve male privilege.


But on a serious note, I think I know the actual rationale behind the law. A lot of very aggressive Arab guys in European countries hit on the women there, and this is a racist attempt to throw them in jail for it.
 
2012-09-10 02:52:52 AM  
We went wrong my brothers not by letting them vote or own property or even wearing shoes, our error was teaching them to talk.
 
2012-09-10 04:23:48 AM  

Diogenes The Cynic: I wonder why the Patriarchy keeps passing laws like this. Must be to preserve male privilege.


But on a serious note, I think I know the actual rationale behind the law. A lot of very aggressive Arab guys in European countries hit on the women there, and this is a racist attempt to throw them in jail for it.


So, you're saying is that men of the arab race are incapable of adapting to the cultural norms of places they go to. Doesn't that seem a bit racist to you? Do you think Arab men are too stupid to adapt?
 
2012-09-10 04:44:08 AM  

Gyrfalcon: RoyBatty: Gyrfalcon: Dude, his handle is WILLIAM J. MORRIS. It has to be a troll.

He's clearly a troll, but what am I missing about the name!?

(psst,the cigarette manufacturers? Nobody takes them seriously)


Sigh, that's how square and nerdy I am. Didn't even know....
 
2012-09-10 05:00:50 AM  

sminkypinky: chuckufarlie: FREEDOM - that is why my ancestors left Europe 300 years ago.

I wonder if the Native Americans whose land was stolen from them and were slaughtered in the process, have the same view?


I'd say no.
 
2012-09-10 05:32:49 AM  
Why do guys make those remarks to women on the street anyway? It's not like it'll get them laid.
 
2012-09-10 10:20:48 AM  

Mambo Bananapatch: LewDux: It's political correctness gone mad. You can't even write misogynist abuse in excrement on someone's vW Tiguan without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat

You laugh, but this aims to equate your situation with whistling at a g


Not according to people who wrote it
"Former attorney general Baroness Scotland, who worked on the convention for four years under the Labour government, said the clause on sexual harassment was not intended to cover less serious incidents such as wolf-whistling and public teasing"

What "Julia Gray, founder of the London branch of US movement Hollaback" wants is irrelevant
 
2012-09-10 10:40:09 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Why do guys make those remarks to women on the street anyway? It's not like it'll get them laid.


Yeah, it's not like buying a drink.
 
Displayed 50 of 176 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report