I control myself just fine. Who are you to judge? It's hypersensitivity plain and simple, a women wears pants that make her appear nearly naked and I'm a bad person for noticing when she bends over right in front of me?
If I wore some tight ass pants to the gym and bent over in front of people it would be insane to get pissed off about being looked at, take your nonsense somewhere else. You feel the need to make yourself feel better than others whenever possible and it's boring, you aren't better than me, nice try though.
Says the guy who's appointed himself as the person who gets to decide when people are overreacting or being "hypersensitive." And I never said noticing, I said leering. There's a pretty big difference between the two.
If you don't have the ability not to stare at a woman, then no, you don't control yourself just fine.
where did I say I can't control myself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Says the guy who's appointed himself as the person who gets to decide when people are overreacting or being "hypersensitive." And I never said noticing, I said leering. There's a pretty big difference between the two.
so you just instantly jump to that conclusion that's what's happening? And that's not hypersensitivity or misplaced political correctness?
So then you're choosing to stare at women and make them uncomfortable? Do you honestly think that's better? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume maybe there was a miscommunication, and that you meant more of the casual glance and not mouth-open drool and stare.
I control myself just fine. Who are you to judge? It's hypersensitivity plain and simple, a women wears pants that make her appear nearly naked and I'm a bad person for noticing when she bends over right in front of me?
If I wore some tight ass pants to the gym and bent over in front of people it would be insane to get pissed off about being looked at, take your nonsense somewhere else. You feel the need to make yourself feel better than others whenever possible and it's boring, you aren't better than me, nice try though.
this just in using eyes makes you a dirtbag, women do not like being looked at and are not into their looks at all. Now looking below the neckline is considered repugnant harassment.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
So then you're choosing to stare at women and make them uncomfortable? Do you honestly think that's better? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume maybe there was a miscommunication, and that you meant more of the casual glance and not mouth-open drool and stare.
I've never done that, but it's apparent that you are bad at making assumptions. I was commenting that a women wears revealing clothing and men all around look and somehow that means I leer, stare and harass. What a bunch of clowns. Must be hard to see up on that high horse.
It's pretty interesting to watch this thread evolve vs the MGTOW thread.
Yeah, it reminds me of what I said yesterday about our collective attitudes towards misogyny and casual sexism. Virtually everyone who participated in the discussion was very quick to condemn really obvious misogyny in the MGTOW thread, but there's a fair number of people making very sexist comments here and probably not even realizing that they're being sexist.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
this just in using eyes makes you a dirtbag, women do not like being looked at and are not into their looks at all. Now looking below the neckline is considered repugnant harassment.
Dude, I think you're getting way too emotional in all of this. You're using strawman arguments and not thinking rationally. Are you sure you're not a little hypersensitive about your actions at the gym?
... you don't decide where my eyes go in public...it's unreasonable to ask men not to stare at the one thing that drives their brain the most when flaunting it around.
So if it's unreasonable to ask men not to stare at women, that means it's uncontrollable, and if you believe it's uncontrollable, that would mean you cannot control yourself.
It's literally impossible for one side to say anything without completely being judged by the other. It's not even okay to question or play devil’s advocate without instantly becoming a rapist or in support of rapists
1. Barber dude should have just cut the chicks hair
or
2. Chick should have just gone to a different place
If 1. happened, barber dude should have just continued after the haircut "as is" running his men’s barber
if 2. Happened, chick should have just continued on, going to the place that eventually cut her hair if they did a good job and thought barber dude was foolish for being out $20.
Productivity would have not decreased in Calgary.
Gross exaggerations would not have been made.
High horses would have been lonely.
I think had 1. or 2. happened the world would have been a better place.
Nothing else in this thread is accomplishing anything that is of more use than either of the two individuals doing 1. or 2.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ranchlandsselling For This Useful Post:
Dude, I think you're getting way too emotional in all of this. You're using strawman arguments and not thinking rationally. Are you sure you're not a little hypersensitive about your actions at the gym?
Well I was accused of harassment, leering, called repugnant and a scumbag while not using any emotional language so it seems like you are again, making false assumptions. I'm done here, you guys are out to lunch.
I've never done that, but it's apparent that you are bad at making assumptions. I was commenting that a women wears revealing clothing and men all around look and somehow that means I leer, stare and harass. What a bunch of clowns. Must be hard to see up on that high horse.
You were the one who used the word stare, dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
The gym is not a workplace and women choose to wear revealing clothing on their own freewill, you don't decide where my eyes go in public. If a women chooses to show her butt and wear a shirt that barely holds in her chest it's not really harassment, she'd be chastised for wearing it at work so how can you chastise people for looking at women that choose to wear revealing clothing? I don't walk around in a speedo and get pissed off if people stare, that's silly.
EDIT: And apparently used it twice. So apologies for not being able to read your mind and know what you actually meant?
Here's a tip, it is not up to somebody else to change their behaviour because you can't control your own offensive behaviour. If you are the one who is unable to control themselves, then the onus is on you to remove yourself from said situations or work on bettering yourself. This isn't complex stuff. It should be baseline morality for anyone without a complete sense of entitlement.
If this guy complained about being leered at by girls in the gym, I'm betting he would get zero sympathy from any quarter. In fact, guys that dress like this when going to the gym are routinely mocked by pretty much everyone as dude-bros and D-bags.
They are almost always dressed like this because they want attention. A girl dressed in a barley there halter top and lululemon pants so tight you can see through them is in the same boat IMO.
Individuals need to realize that they have some control over how they are treated and act accordingly just as the people they encounter need to do the same. It's a two way street.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Oil Stain For This Useful Post:
A private business is not legally permitted to deny service on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. unless there is a legitimate justification in the eyes of the court for the discrimination (as photon noted earlier). The Charter doesn't allow you to open, for example, a clothing store that refuses to sell to black customers or a private school that won't accept Asian students. You could open a business that you advertise as a "Jewish Deli", but you would not be allowed to refuse service to non-Jews.
Actually, as I understand it, 110% is technically correct --
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is specific to the actions of government, and doesn't apply otherwise. It's part of the constitution and requires constitutional amendment to change. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...s_and_Freedoms)
However, the Canadian Human Rights Act does apply to private business - that's the legislation that applies in these cases. It is a law like any other, and can - and has - been updated over time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Act)
That said, both the Charter and the HRA allow for exceptions in situations where the discrimination is determined to be 'justified'.
Individual provinces may also have their own human rights legislation.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to maverickstruth For This Useful Post:
I've never done that, but it's apparent that you are bad at making assumptions. I was commenting that a women wears revealing clothing and men all around look and somehow that means I leer, stare and harass. What a bunch of clowns. Must be hard to see up on that high horse.
You specifically said it was unreasonable to expect men not to stare.
To stare.
Your words.
It's perfectly acceptable for people to glance at each other at the gym, but YOU somehow find it impossible not to stare?
rubecube, please stop being a self righteous jerk. Your posts generally make sense and I assume you've got some education in this field, but constantly attacking other posters is doing nothing to help your cause.
I really don't think anyone is actually accusing you of staring like a confused 18 year old kid at a strip club in the gym. They are just trying to set the example of what is appropriate and what is not. Unless staring for prolonged periods is okay to you...
