And this reply is not hostile, calling someone stupid?

In the beginning I didn't put those links up. However there are still newbies here who address me as "man" and "dude" for some reason.

And I don't know how he does it either!! :D

This thread needs some incendiary rhetoric.

OK, how about a reminder in the Newbie sticky, or wherever else, that this forum is an international, co-ed forum.

I think there are some who come here who think it is entirely a US male forum for some reason.

Yeah -- what's it to ya?

http://dmcordell.blogspot.com/2008/0...ngs-adult.html


http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...e-verbal-abuse

I take it you can't refute the last post I made in that carbon bike thread. :thumb:

Man, a dude like you should know that young dudes call everyone "dude", even their moms, dude.

How about you log out and don't come back until you have a worthwhile point to make. Sound good to you? It sure sounds good to the rest of us. Thanks. Go get laid or something.

Watching the last two pages of this thread is like seeing a friend start a drug habit.

Wow. Again, 100% based on the idea than 1. men can't control themselves and 2. it's totally OK if they can't. 1952 called and they'd like their attitudes on women back.

The ideas you're expressing fall on the benign end of a continuum of a lot of things done to women, and the "she was asking for it" defense still holds up in a lot of places.

This thread needs more photos of babes.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x..._city_ver1.jpg

I hate to get involved here because the whole thread went off the rails from the get-go and the moderation hasn't helped that. I didn't read the thread that started this, as I avoid most of the road forum anyway. But based on what I've read about it here the offensive posts were pretty obvious, it's a select few who post things like that, and most obvious of all those posts should simply be removed by the moderators and the offenders should earn an infraction.

Still, Pete, do you really think a guy can't flirt with a woman, or ask her out? Where's the slippery slope you're on end. Seems you're dropping off a cliff. It's ok for a woman to be flirtatious (you did say that) but not a guy?

Or how about we just keep it an actual mature conversation without the "febrile" and "babe" jokes. You might learn something.

No DrPete, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying people have to own what they do. A woman has the right to walk through Central Park at 2AM. Doing so would be stupid. So when she gets *****, sure the guy is wrong. Does it make her right?

My point is, having a right doesn't make it right. And quite frankly, I have no desire to be PC. I'm extremely tired of watching movements go from people not having rights to those same people abusing rights. And when it comes to women being provocative, it's not anyones personal view of whether or not she is, but the general opinion that will matter. And if a woman is seen as a dick tease, there won't be much sympathy for her when she gets called on it. Again, own what you do.

Engaging in high-risk behavior doesn't make the perp any less wrong. The "general opinion" is completely irrelevant--a woman has the right to not have a violent felony committed against her no matter what she's wearing.

My wife works in sexual assault prevention on a large college campus, and the number of women who get ***** is ridiculously shocking--the number of men who never see any consequences for it is even more nauseating. The "she was asking for it" culture goes well beyond walking through Central Park at 2 AM. Yes, the reality is that it's a bad idea, but the only one truly "wrong" is the man who takes advantage of that situation. And going back to your "general opinion" idea, there are plenty of frat boys whose brothers have the "general opinion" that drugging and gang raping women is perfectly OK, and that "if they don't want it, they shouldn't be hot." Yes, that's a real quote. Personally, I'd like to change that culture before my daughter has to grow up in it.

Bottom line is that if men didn't **** women, there'd be no women getting *****, even if women walked down the street completely naked.

See below.

I hate to attempt a serious post but you've beaten this point into the ground, Doc. I doubt there are any advocates of **** on this forum.

Your wife is doing a good thing. Maybe it's driving her into "black and white", "you're either for me or against me" thinking. Then people will accuse her of being as much of a Manichee as they accused Bush.

But maybe that's a good thing.

In any case, if I go to certain areas of my fair city at certain times of night, there is a high likelihood I will get shot. It's wrong and evil and in the name of justice and all that is holy this should be changed.

But if I have an ounce of common sense I won't put myself into that situation, don't you think?

As a human being, and as a woman, I do agree with the idea of personal responsibility with regard to dress and decorum. That said, how you dress (and, with regard to sex crimes against women, how you act) are not situated upon some sliding scale of appropriateness with regard to inciting / allowing criminal behaviour.

I do understand where you're coming from, but you have to realize that crimes against women (because they are women) are hate crimes and are not different from crimes against members of distinct racial groups or against *****exuals. There is no grey area when you attack someone because of their gender, race or sexual orientation. None.

Your example of walking through a bad area of town and being attacked is disingenuous to the discussion at hand as those types of crimes are not targeted crimes ... a man, woman, child, rich, poor, black, or white would all face the same risk. What's at issue here (funny how the topic kinda changed in the last several pages, huh?) is crimes that specifically target women, more or less because they are women.

...And, its kinda interesting that most of the female voices that contributed to the start of this thread are now very, very quiet. It's hard to want to keep participating when you have a bunch of men (even if they mean well) expressing such latent hostility toward women and engaging in paternalistic discussion of what behaviour we should / should not engage in.

As I've said before, reframe much of the discussion over the last couple of pages in a racial context and I suspect everyone would be able to see it's inappropriateness.

Anyways, this is a useless discussion to spend anymore time on. I do thank certain posters (male and female) for their contribution, and am now excusing myself. Party on.

BTW - Dr. Pete's story is not a rare one. An acquaintance of mine, who is the least "asking for it" kinda girl you would care to meet, was at a bar with some friends. I guess a couple of guys thought she was "hot" and she was slipped something in her drink and essentially kidnapped. She was, in a drugged state, taken to a hotel where she was going to be *****, and was told as much. One of the young, college age boys came to his senses, let her call her mother and dropped her on the sidewalk outside a hotel. These weren't "bad guys", they were university students at frosh week who somehow have gotten the idea that if a girl is "hot", she's up for grabs. She was too drugged out to give much information to the police, and they got away with it. Here's hoping the next girl they set their eyes on was as lucky.

I suggest that we all go out today and ride so hard that we are too tired to care about this thread or to be offended by anything.

I'm hitting the road in 10 min myself.

That made me throw up in my mouth a little..

But at least Dr. Pete is a voice of reason here, among others. Thanks.

Again, I'm not talking about how wrong a perp is or isn't. I'm talking about owning what we do. If a woman wants to be provocative, she is doing so at her own risk. Right or wrong, it is a fact. We all make choices in the same way, so to single out women is to ignore the fact that we all have to look out for ourselves. And we all do to some level. Just as I don't ride through the inner city, some women don't dress provocatively to help prevent negative results.

How is dressing provocatively not high risk if there is a known likelihood of negative results from doing so? Quite frankly, I find your argument that there is right and wrong to ignore reality. We would have to not have free will for it to work, a place I don't care to go. Think about it DrPete, if man isn't supposed to react to a woman being provocative, what would she do to get a man to make an advance? Would we make a law that if a woman wears green, it's a go? Believe it or not, many women that do dress provocatively do want an advance made on them. That is why the do it.

Not that long ago, being black and engaging in certain activities or yes, even dressing certain ways in certain places was considered "high risk". We got over that.

Not that long ago, being *****exual and engaging in certain activities or yes, dressing certain ways was considered "high risk". We got over that.

Being a woman and dressing a certain way is only going to be considered "high risk" as long as we (as a society) decide that violent sexual behaviour toward women is OK under certain circumstances. Why can't we just, as with the examples above, decide that it's wrong. Because, you know, it is.

Ask your wives, girlfriends, sisters and female friends ... women that you can all pretty much know not be "those sorts of women", you know, the kind that "ask for it". You will likely be shocked at the number of them that have endured inappropriate sexual advances from men. And when I say that, I don't mean some guy coming on too strong at a bar or the local construction yahoos shouting out some choice comments. I mean scary encounters. It should give you pause.