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.

(Daily Mail)   Feminist blogger slams the 'Kissing Sailor' from the iconic 1945 Times Square photo as 'drunken predator', says it was a sexual assault   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 441
    More: Asinine, Times Square, Radio City Music Hall, sailors, End of World War II in Europe, Library of Congress, George Mendonsa  
•       •       •

14848 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Oct 2012 at 12:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-07 09:30:49 PM

Mock26: Literally thousands off people with Masters, PhDs and Doctorates. Really?


Yes, really. We are one of the top Universities in the US / world for advanced degrees.
 
2012-10-07 09:32:03 PM

2words1finger: Okay let me try this another way. Here's the scenario, you're a male walking down Main Street, USA celebrating some really good news. It could be that your local sports team just won the big game or that Osama Bin Laden was finally "dealt with", it doesn't matter. Other people are out in the streets celebrating too. You walk up to some random woman and force an embrace and kiss on her. Now answer me this people... what crime could you be charged with?

If you didn't answer at least with "attempted sexual assault" then you're either severely ignorant of the law or you're the kind of person who should probably be wearing one of those ankle GPS trackers and your name should be in some kind of public safety registry.

Maybe this blogger is some kind of "feminazi" douche, but her point is entirely accurate and valid. What that sailor did was wrong by any civilized standards because the woman, by her own admission, was not a willing participant. There is simply no way that any reasonable person could disagree with this, and I'm not basing that solely on my own opinion of the matter, but rather on the standards of our civil society.

Now, if you want to be a smartass and reply with a bunch of name-calling or irrational arguments that's just fine with me so long as you understand that I will respond in kind.


Lighten up, Francis. Just because she wasn't willing doesn't mean she didn't like it.
 
2012-10-07 09:34:58 PM

bunner: LostGuy: If men could just admit out loud that they aren't constantly horny, it would go a long way to correcting the issue.

Well, I think what's important here is that it's the victim's fault. *snort*


Sorry to be confusing. What I meant my "the issue" was men assaulting women.
It's never the victims fault. But there is this cultural myth that men are super-horny. Like the old line: "Men think about sex every 7 seconds." This both provides an excuse for men to assault women and makes it very difficult for male victims to admit they've been victimized.
It's similar to the myth in very conservative Muslim countries that just seeing a woman's hair will automatically whip up men into a frenzy. Of course there, when they see a woman with uncovered hair they have cultural cover to assault the woman.

I'm going to make a bold proposition here. I think men are perfectly biologically capable of controlling their sex-drive with strangers.
 
2012-10-07 09:52:10 PM

LostGuy: I'm going to make a bold proposition here. I think men are perfectly biologically capable of controlling their sex-drive with strangers.


And I would counter that - at least by traditional standards - they aren't really men.
 
2012-10-07 09:53:05 PM

LostGuy: Sorry to be confusing. What I meant my "the issue" was men assaulting women.
It's never the victims fault. But there is this cultural myth that men are super-horny. Like the old line: "Men think about sex every 7 seconds." This both provides an excuse for men to assault women and makes it very difficult for male victims to admit they've been victimized.
It's similar to the myth in very conservative Muslim countries that just seeing a woman's hair will automatically whip up men into a frenzy. Of course there, when they see a woman with uncovered hair they have cultural cover to assault the woman.

I'm going to make a bold proposition here. I think men are perfectly biologically capable of controlling their sex-drive with strangers.


You're still arguing a strawman.

Of course men can control their sex drive. That's why people are able to function in society without raping left and right...
Who ever said they couldn't?

Now, if a woman wants to have sex with a man. Unless there's some extenuating circumstances, the man will say yes. He has NOTHING to lose. Why would he reject it? Oh well, he probably doesn't like her. But then again, look at the smoking gun links on Fark and the ugly-ass prostitutes in them. When men are horny and pussy is available, oh boy!

A woman has a inherently extenuating circumstance with her: she can get pregnant, so she has to consider if having sex with this man is worth it.

Of course, there's also outdated social mores that play into that like "woman who gets around is a slut", while "the man who sleeps around is a champ."
 
2012-10-07 10:09:20 PM

LostGuy: Sorry to be confusing. What I meant my "the issue" was men assaulting women.


That was not, however, the point you made or addressed. You made a case for neither sex being blameless in cases of sexual assault, and then continued to state that, when men are the target, they are to blame. That wasn't confusing at all. Either unsolicited attention is reprehensible or it isn't and either the the victim is blameless regardless of societal norms, or they are not.
 
2012-10-07 10:17:07 PM

onyxruby: Mock26: What University do you work at? I am very interested in learning about a school that has 2,000+ people with Masters, PHDs, and Doctorates as part of its staff and student body. Such a school must be huge!

Were in the top 5 on this list. I know your trolling, however I'm not, we really are as you put it "huge".


If you really do work at this prestigious university as you claim, then by your appalling grammar I'm betting that I wouldn't be far off the mark to guess that you work as a groundskeeper or in building maintenance or some other job that does not even require a GED.

/it's "you're", not "your"
//yes yes, "screw you grammar nazi" etc.
 
2012-10-07 10:24:10 PM

rocky_howard: LostGuy: Sorry to be confusing. What I meant my "the issue" was men assaulting women.
It's never the victims fault. But there is this cultural myth that men are super-horny. Like the old line: "Men think about sex every 7 seconds." This both provides an excuse for men to assault women and makes it very difficult for male victims to admit they've been victimized.
It's similar to the myth in very conservative Muslim countries that just seeing a woman's hair will automatically whip up men into a frenzy. Of course there, when they see a woman with uncovered hair they have cultural cover to assault the woman.

I'm going to make a bold proposition here. I think men are perfectly biologically capable of controlling their sex-drive with strangers.

You're still arguing a strawman.

Of course men can control their sex drive. That's why people are able to function in society without raping left and right...
Who ever said they couldn't?

Now, if a woman wants to have sex with a man. Unless there's some extenuating circumstances, the man will say yes. He has NOTHING to lose. Why would he reject it? Oh well, he probably doesn't like her. But then again, look at the smoking gun links on Fark and the ugly-ass prostitutes in them. When men are horny and pussy is available, oh boy!

A woman has a inherently extenuating circumstance with her: she can get pregnant, so she has to consider if having sex with this man is worth it.

Of course, there's also outdated social mores that play into that like "woman who gets around is a slut", while "the man who sleeps around is a champ."


Whoa, your crossing the streams a bit. This was my response to burner so I think that's why you got a bit confused. The men can control themselves thing was a response to him and those excusing the sailor because he was so overjoyed or some shiat. The Man is a US sailor, if he can't control himself when drunk- he should get in trouble. If he had hit a man, he would have. Truth is kissing strange women was just excused those days.

Now to the point about men refusing sex. You perfectly expressed the current cultural belief: that the man will always say yes cause there is nothing to lose. It even makes some evolutionary-psychology sense. However, from personal experience, it just doesn't bare-out. I've felt that cultural pressure, slept with women, and then regretted it. It's like playing a bad video game: you lose some time and some sanity. I now have rejected my cultural training and will refuse women who don't meet my standards. Don't take this as bragging, it's not that I get so many offers I can be choosy. I've just learned a forbidden truth: Bad sex is worse than no sex. If some nutty woman planted one on me, I may well try to press charges, although I doubt a cop would take me seriously because he's under the same illusions.

Of course, you also notice were in an era where women can be as safe as men when having sex. A woman on good birth control won't get pregnant. However, the aversion to "slutness" still operates even with the biological risk gone. I think those outdated social mores you mentioned are still in full play for a lot of folks.
 
2012-10-07 10:26:09 PM

bunner: LostGuy: Sorry to be confusing. What I meant my "the issue" was men assaulting women.

That was not, however, the point you made or addressed. You made a case for neither sex being blameless in cases of sexual assault, and then continued to state that, when men are the target, they are to blame. That wasn't confusing at all. Either unsolicited attention is reprehensible or it isn't and either the the victim is blameless regardless of societal norms, or they are not.


Here I'll make it easy for you:
unsolicited attention is reprehensible.
 
2012-10-07 10:39:15 PM

LostGuy: Here I'll make it easy for you:
unsolicited attention is reprehensible.


Thank you for outlining the sort of dime store condescension that has hobbled every ostensibly high minded social movement since somebody said "hey, that's not fair!" Let me make it even easier for you. What I said you stated is *precisely* what you stated, semantics are a bore, condescension, more so, and I think everybody now has a very lucid idea as to the reason you use this forum.
 
2012-10-07 10:49:47 PM

2words1finger: If you really do work at this prestigious university as you claim, then by your appalling grammar I'm betting that I wouldn't be far off the mark to guess that you work as a groundskeeper or in building maintenance or some other job that does not even require a GED.


On the off chance that you weren't a troll and were merely of a different mind set I tried to see if it was possible to have a polite dialogue with you. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and like to hear differing opinions, after all sometimes other people can change my mind on something. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you responded by trolling to see if I would bite. When I didn't take your bait and ignored you, you quickly revealed yourself as the troll you are.

I'm not going to waste my time with someone whose only interest is trolling and belittling. You have consistently insulted others throughout this thread and your behavior needs reined in. I'm sure a modmin or admin while take care of that soon enough.
 
2012-10-07 10:51:08 PM
Oh come off it burner.

I used a pronoun phrase "this issue", classic ambiguous bad writing. A copy-editor would have my head. You thought I was referring to one thing, when I referring to another. When I tried to correct myself, you would have none of it. I consider it a bit condescending that you thought you could interpret my intent better than me. So, I responded in kind. I'm truly sorry for that.

Unsolicited attention from either gender is reprehensible. Some women think that it's ok for women to randomly kiss men, because men always want to be kissed. These women, the assulters are wrong- and any men who agree with them are wrong. Just as men who think that immodestly dressed women are asking to be assaulted are wrong- as are any women who agree with them.
 
2012-10-07 10:52:55 PM
Anyone who thinks it's forgivable just because a woman's doing it doesn't deserve to be called a feminists. If men could just admit out loud that they aren't constantly horny, it would go a long way to correcting the issue.

Come off that. Adieu.
 
2012-10-07 10:56:38 PM

onyxruby: 2words1finger: If you really do work at this prestigious university as you claim, then by your appalling grammar I'm betting that I wouldn't be far off the mark to guess that you work as a groundskeeper or in building maintenance or some other job that does not even require a GED.

On the off chance that you weren't a troll and were merely of a different mind set I tried to see if it was possible to have a polite dialogue with you. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and like to hear differing opinions, after all sometimes other people can change my mind on something. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you responded by trolling to see if I would bite. When I didn't take your bait and ignored you, you quickly revealed yourself as the troll you are.

I'm not going to waste my time with someone whose only interest is trolling and belittling. You have consistently insulted others throughout this thread and your behavior needs reined in. I'm sure a modmin or admin while take care of that soon enough.


Highly doubtful, as I've not done anything to violate the FARK posting rules.

welcometofark.jpg
 
2012-10-07 10:58:20 PM
If your raison d' etre here is to see how much sh*t you can shove under people's noses with impunity, maybe you missed the point. I'm pretty sure none of this is going to be published at Cambridge.
 
2012-10-07 11:20:36 PM
Was he drunk? Then if so, it was rape. She raped him.

That's how it works.
 
2012-10-08 01:02:17 AM
Hey feminists? Stick a huge splintered, dangerous telephone pole up your coonts, then go make me farking dinner before I put on a greasy ripped tank top and wallop you.
 
2012-10-08 01:13:44 AM
Wow.

Threads like this remind me why I basically stopped posting on this site.

You people are awful human beings.
 
2012-10-08 01:23:59 AM

Aurric: Wow.

Threads like this remind me why I basically stopped posting on this site.

You people are awful human beings.


I know, right? It's freaking AWESOME!
 
2012-10-08 01:53:14 AM

cman: If you look at history with the evolved standards we have today you are doing yourselves a huge disservice. Many of the founding fathers owned slaves, yet no one calls them evil. It was a different time.


Um, no chief. Slavery always has, always is, and always will be a putrid farking morally evil and indefensible act of putrid inhuman wretchedness.

Saying people are cable of both evil and brilliance, or even transcendent insight isn't the same thing as condoning or even accepting evil actions.

You are confusing begrudgingly dealing with a historical shameful act with condoning it.
 
2012-10-08 02:34:51 AM

Virtue: Why is anyone surprised by this? Feminism is a hate movement


lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-10-08 06:41:54 AM
FTA: According to the feminist blogger, the iconic image betrays that 'something is not quiet right.'

www.metalinsider.net

How sic?
 
2012-10-08 09:33:48 AM
Article fail.

Fark had a link where someone tracked her down and she agreed to be kissed by a sailor again.
 
2012-10-08 09:56:57 AM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: cman: If you look at history with the evolved standards we have today you are doing yourselves a huge disservice. Many of the founding fathers owned slaves, yet no one calls them evil. It was a different time.

Um, no chief. Slavery always has, always is, and always will be a putrid farking morally evil and indefensible act of putrid inhuman wretchedness.

Saying people are cable of both evil and brilliance, or even transcendent insight isn't the same thing as condoning or even accepting evil actions.

You are confusing begrudgingly dealing with a historical shameful act with condoning it.


Please, shut up. The founding fathers weren't evil for having slaves. No more evil atheist people are today compared to the morality of the 1600s.
It was the system in question. Since they grew up with it, it probably wasn't bad in their minds and you can't fault them. They weren't exactly superhuman to change it by force in one day anyway.

I bet you have a piece of electronics made in China by basically slave labor. In the future, when such thing is finally frowned upon for real, do you want people from that time saying "Serious Post in a Serious Thread was evil. He bought products made by children in Asian sweatshops"?
 
2012-10-08 11:30:11 AM
It's a good thing we don't have any real problems to solve.
 
2012-10-08 11:51:39 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-08 12:44:00 PM
Sure he was drunk...ON LIFE. The farking war ended.
 
2012-10-08 12:48:49 PM
Anyone notice yet that the "newest" comments on the article are from June?
 
2012-10-08 12:56:35 PM

rocky_howard: No more evil atheist people are today compared to the morality of the 1600s.


Less so really. You had indulgences to buy that shiat off.
 
2012-10-08 01:05:07 PM

cwolf20: Anyone notice yet that the "newest" comments on the article are from June?


My god! The article itself pertains to an event sixty-seven Junes ago.
 
2012-10-08 01:53:46 PM
Geez, why pick on the sailor (oh, easy target, yeah) Watch any film of the `liberation' of any major city in Europe, at the end of the war. Take a count of the number of `labial assaults' on the troopers marching/tooling down the main drags in jeeps, by the exultant distaff cohort of the local populations...

I date the origin of political correctness to the first appearance of the word `gender' (as a synonym for sex) in a `scientific journal' (sociology, meh) in `72. Neo-bowdlerization of the `context'?

`Ah, forget about it, lee, it's Dworkin town...'

Male-dominant gender hierarchy, however, seems immune to reform by reasoned or visionary argument or by changes in sexual styles, either personal or social. This may be because intercourse itself is immune to reform. In it, female is bottom, stigmatized. Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her cell by cell her own inferior status, impressing it on her, burning it into her by shoving it into her, over and over, pushing and thrusting until she gives up and gives in--which is called surrender in the male lexicon. In the experience of intercourse, she loses the capacity for integrity because her body--the basis of privacy and freedom in the material world for all human beings--is entered and occupied; the boundaries of her physical body are--neutrally speaking-- violated.
 
2012-10-08 01:54:43 PM
SkunkWerks

My god! The article itself pertains to an event sixty-seven Junes ago.


I read that in the voices of Lone Star and a conversation between him and Barf.

"What the helll was that?"

"Spaceball One"

"They've gone to plaid!"

Your comment will forever after make me laugh about that conversation
 
2012-10-08 02:09:43 PM

Crazy Lee: Male-dominant gender hierarchy, however, seems immune to reform by reasoned or visionary argument or by changes in sexual styles, either personal or social. This may be because intercourse itself is immune to reform. In it, female is bottom, stigmatized. Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her cell by cell her own inferior status, impressing it on her, burning it into her by shoving it into her, over and over, pushing and thrusting until she gives up and gives in--which is called surrender in the male lexicon. In the experience of intercourse, she loses the capacity for integrity because her body--the basis of privacy and freedom in the material world for all human beings--is entered and occupied; the boundaries of her physical body are--neutrally speaking-- violated.

 

www.lowbird.com
 
2012-10-08 02:44:58 PM
rocky_howard WTFIIR!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin
 
2012-10-08 06:05:08 PM
So, how come the feminists are absent from the prison rape thread?
 
2012-10-08 07:03:32 PM
blogger is just a fan of Cracked.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-08 07:32:43 PM
LOOK AT MY BUTT!

DON'T YOU DARE LOOK AT MY BUTT!

OH EM GEE, PUT IT IN ME!

OH EM GEE NEVER PUT IT IN ME CAUSE ALL SEX IS RAPE!

F*cking biology, how does it work.

*sigh*

Get over yourselves, y'all.*pop*

It's a zero sum game.
 
2012-10-08 07:46:32 PM
"Leopard," huh?

This woman won't even blog under her real name, and yet people take this drivel seriously? Why?
 
2012-10-08 08:46:06 PM

rocky_howard: Serious Post on Serious Thread: cman: If you look at history with the evolved standards we have today you are doing yourselves a huge disservice. Many of the founding fathers owned slaves, yet no one calls them evil. It was a different time.

Um, no chief. Slavery always has, always is, and always will be a putrid farking morally evil and indefensible act of putrid inhuman wretchedness.

Saying people are cable of both evil and brilliance, or even transcendent insight isn't the same thing as condoning or even accepting evil actions.

You are confusing begrudgingly dealing with a historical shameful act with condoning it.

Please, shut up. The founding fathers weren't evil for having slaves. No more evil atheist people are today compared to the morality of the 1600s.
It was the system in question. Since they grew up with it, it probably wasn't bad in their minds and you can't fault them. They weren't exactly superhuman to change it by force in one day anyway.

I bet you have a piece of electronics made in China by basically slave labor. In the future, when such thing is finally frowned upon for real, do you want people from that time saying "Serious Post in a Serious Thread was evil. He bought products made by children in Asian sweatshops"?


I answered all your drivel in my post above. You offer nothing new. You are not very smart.
 
2012-10-09 12:06:11 AM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: I answered all your drivel in my post above. You offer nothing new. You are not very smart.


Says the idiot.
 
2012-10-09 12:17:12 PM
In other news, white people aren't getting married and having children like they used to.
 
Displayed 41 of 441 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report