I’ve asked a few times - I think mostly in the other thread. I’ll ask you, too, what would be a safe outfit if her clothing was even a little bit to blame? She was sufficiently clothed to not be sent home by her boss, to not be arrested for indecent exposure- what should she have been wearing instead?
ETA: do you think women are more likely to be groped say, at the beach or at the pool, than elsewhere? Lots of bikinis at those locations.
And if she were wearing jeans and a t-shirt, what would be the logical response?
“Its surprising that a guy would grope a lady dressed so modestly! He had that body slam coming to him.”
Or
“Not surprised this happened to her because it happens so often. He had that body slam coming to him.”
They forced me to watch those films at the super secret FEMA death camp, when the Blue Helmets took over Texas - right after Obama declared martial law.
BS IMO to say ‘Sanebill’ is ‘defending the groper’. There are two separate things with any crime against people who are minding their own business*. There’s the criminal who is solely responsible for his or her acts. And there’s the victim who is not responsible for the criminal’s acts, but can still ask him or herself whether different behavior would have suited their overall purposes more or less as well but made them less likely to be a victim. This is in the general category of ‘life isn’t fair’ observations which some people now seem trained to react to with all kinds of wild accusations against anyone pointing them out. But nevertheless.
However, there’s a big caveat with female servers in drinking (and food, but the incidents usually involves drinking, though that’s no excuse) establishments. Which is, they are often encouraged or required to wear provocative clothing. It would be their right to wear it regardless and not be sexually molested: the criminal is solely responsible for his criminal acts. But if the waitress felt it wasn’t worth the extra risk to dress provocatively at work, they couldn’t necessarily make that choice without violating an implicit understanding or even explicit rule of the proprietor. So it’s not like just observing that risk of harm could be reduced not walking in a particular place at a particular time because you feel like it, here it would be people impairing their livelihoods, higher hurdle. Although, the follow on question is the ethics of hiring women expecting they’ll dress provocatively and not fully protecting them against criminal gropers.
*and you can’t be not minding your business just because of what you are wearing, I just want to distinguish it from cases where two people assault one another verbally say then one of them slugs the other, one is just more at fault than the other. I mean one person is doing nothing illegal at all and somebody else commits a crime against them.
I care, potty mouth. You delusional and overly vocal fools don’t know how counterproductive your ignorant zealotry is.
Oh go fuck yourself, and your stupid “potty mouth” whining.
It is 100% defending the groper. You’re attributing part of the blame to the victim for their choice of apparel. “This may not have happened to you if you’d not been wearing that”. You have effectively split the blame across two parties, thus explicitly reducing the culpability of the person who actually committed the offense.
If it upsets you, it is far from counterproductive.
Lol, of course a vile pig such as yourself would revel in the new rules. Not that there is a functional difference between the new and old. I guess I could call you an appropriate bastardization of your name such as cuntstasia now but that’d make me a potty mouth.:eek: and we wouldn’t want that. At least not over such a trivial subject.
I’m not upset, dimwit. It’s just amusing that the point people make with regards to ideological zealotry that borders on insanity is consistently missed.
How about, don’t grab a woman’s ass unless it’s your gf, fiancee, wife.
The end.
Go for it, bitch. I really don’t care what I’m called by a whiney little hypocrite like you. (Just make sure you don’t do it when your kids are around – mustn’t let them see what naughty words Daddy uses on a grown-up message board!)
Okay, quick poll.
Most of us males here reading this thread have:
gone out to eat at a restaurant
been served by young, attractive waitresses
I think we all agree that we:
a) pay the bill
b) pay a 15-20% tip
c) don’t grab our waitresses’ ass
Even wives, girlfriends, husbands and boyfriends have the right to object to unsolicited sexual touching don’tchaknow.
Of course you’re not. You’re so deeply unruffled you had to post, calling other people potty mouths, dimwits and vile pigs. Why you’re the very image of equanimity.
Perhaps the one thing I like about you, dear chum, is that you’re such an easily offended little milksop. Childish, I know, but I just can’t help myself smile each eand every time you whine and tantrum.
Yeah, the real rule is “Don’t grab their ass unless you’re pretty damn sure they’ll welcome, or at least not mind, the grab.” Which is a lot more likely when it’s your SO, but it’s still not an automatic given.
Seems pretty fucking simple to me.
I’ll tell you what’s worse than potty mouthing and PC zealots and that is tip inflation. What ever happened to a nice even 10%?
Cheapskate asshole. And you’re shitty at arithmetic.
It’s my money. And how am I bad at arithmetic?:dubious:
Really? You care? You care what the OP thinks about what women wear? Because you agree that women who dress provocatively deserve to be groped and raped? Color me surprised.
And Jesus Fucking Jumped Up Christ. Are you ever going to realize how cartoonish it is for a grown-ass person to use the term potty mouth unironically? It’s fucking beyond stupid. It’s like being pulled over by a cop wearing cargo shorts and sandals. No one is ever going to take your shit seriously. But again, color me surprised. Probably explains why you don’t have a job.