Has the #MeToo movement become a witch-hunt to a significant degree?

[SuperLuigi]

OK, well, it turns out it is legal to have company or school policies against certain behaviors and to fire or expel anyone who won’t abide by them. Those who don’t like it can complain and whine about it all they want, but the law won’t be on their side.

These policies are not the law. In fact, someone could have a discrimination case in this day and age over something.

Also, if the law says age of consent = 16 without any exceptions, then yes, too bad if sex happens. The law is the law, and the courts will read it as such. Some places have laws with exceptions. For instance, you can’t be in a sexual relationship with someone who is 16 if you have a professional power relationship over them.

If people don’t like it, they ought to spend time trying to change the law instead of just incessantly complaining or applying today’s standards and culture in part of the country to a totally different area 41 years ago.

There are certain behaviors that are protected as a matter of liberty. Touching people who don’t want you to touch them and making personal comments that impede the raisons d’être of the group that has given you the privilege of associating with them are not protected actions.

I wasn’t talking about non-consensual touching.

Everyone who makes a statement that reflects liberal values is not virtue-signaling.

I never said they were.

Try not to politicize everything on here.

I’ve never seen them.

Neither have I. As I see it:

1. People who make this claim are outright lying.
2. They think something is really offensive that really isn’t that bad—like agreeing with the nuclear family, or it’s something more nuanced where we just have different opinions.
3. The posts are quickly removed.

I tend to believe 2 and 3 over #1. I think the conversations tend to be intelligent enough where people on here won’t just lie outright.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Well, while we are on the subject, do you have any suggestions that work out best?

The problem I see on this thread is the age-old paradox that “no means no”—which I would have to agree with, but what about women who just say off the cuff that they like persistence?

 

[Xantippe]

The problem I see on this thread is the age-old paradox that “no means no”—which I would have to agree with, but what about women who just say off the cuff that they like persistence?

It’s not a tragedy or a sin if they don’t get what they want, whereas it can be a tragedy and a sin if “no” is ignored.

The risks are highly disproportionate.

 

[PetraG]

Well, while we are on the subject, do you have any suggestions that work out best?

The problem I see on this thread is the age-old paradox that “no means no”—which I would have to agree with, but what about women who just say off the cuff that they like persistence?

Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one. Matt. 5:37

Maybe anything less is playing with the affections of another person and well worth avoiding, too? If those who say “no” have to let it be known when they change their minds, I don’t think that would be such an awful thing. It is not as if there are not ways to show consistent interest other than playing these false little games.

At any rate, I don’t have any interest in protecting women who like to say “no” when they mean “yes” when it means that the people who really mean what they say will not be believed.

It is better to have the default be that we believe that what people say is actually the truth. Let them work it out if their calculated falsehoods don’t bring the consequences they were aiming for.

 

[Xantippe]

All the advice I’ve seen here has been geared towards finding a real relationship, not ‘hook-up’ advice.

I always find it interesting when people complain about how there all these hateful, stupid posts on here but can’t cite a single one.

Here’s an example:

Well as someone once said, “It’s only harassment if you are ugly.”. That should clue you in to the real purpose behind the attempts to change both laws and mores.

That’s very much a PUA-ism or a Red PIll-ism–the belief that you can get away with harassment if you’re good looking and that talk of harassment is just to punish less good-looking men.

Some other ideas that pop up:

–encouraging hitting on massive amounts of women (I realize that some numbers are necessary, but I’m talking about a total lack of discrimination)
–lots of negativity about women
–wholely unwarranted faith in pickup technique–even though PUA types themselves admit a terrible success rate
–having very weak notions of what consent entails
–the automatic assumption that any particular rape accusation is false
–assuming that chastity is the woman’s responsibility
–wanting a woman from a category who doesn’t typically respond to pickup from strangers, and wondering why the women he does manage to pickup are so trashy (duh)

 

[PetraG]

I wasn’t talking about non-consensual touching.

The #MeToo movement is about touching that takes place in a culture in which the default answer is presumed to be “yes” until the target establishes otherwise by strenuously taking exception. The law does not specifically protect that presumption. A guy cannot just go around taking liberties with anyone he wants and defend his actions on the grounds that “she didn’t say no.”

There is no point at which the law says, “If you allowed this, you have given consent for everything else,” either.

Sex does not just “happen” to people over 16 and “tough, get over it.”

As far as laws changing, I don’t think that has been ruled out. Certainly places like California have specifically made laws that remove the presumption of consent when one’s partner is too intoxicated to say “no.”

 

[anikins]

I never said they were.

Try not to politicize everything on here.

Yeaaahh, no, you kind of do. Since you bring up your favorite word SOOO often and all.

Also, you should REALLY think about taking your own advice on trying not to politicize everything.

 

[Theo520]

That’s very much a PUA-ism or a Red PIll-ism–the belief that you can get away with harassment if you’re good looking and that talk of harassment is just to punish less good-looking men.

Some other ideas that pop up:

ROFL, you are moving the goal posts
Where is someone giving 'hook up" advice on CAF?

The other ideas popping into your head are your own creation.
In particular, you are the one here arguing for a vague definition of consent.

 

[SuperLuigi]

That’s very much a PUA-ism or a Red PIll-ism–the belief that you can get away with harassment if you’re good looking and that talk of harassment is just to punish less good-looking men.

I don’t know of anyone who is a red pill person who would say that or has said that.

–assuming that chastity is the woman’s responsibility

Flies in the face of Catholic teaching.

–wanting a woman from a category who doesn’t typically respond to pickup from strangers, and wondering why the women he does manage to pickup are so trashy (duh)

Been there, done that.

–the automatic assumption that any particular rape accusation is false

In sexual harassment training, we are taught to proceed in the manner of believing the person to let him or her know what the options are.

Sometimes, the victim does NOT want to report want happened.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Again, I wasn’t responding to non-consensual acts.

I was responding to the idea that legal exceptions would be made if the law says someone who is 16 can consent to sex.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The risks are highly disproportionate.

Which is why I’d advise avoiding people like this.

 

[DarkLight]

The whole point I was making with that statement is that “well it was legal” doesn’t mean everything was completely ok and you shouldn’t have any consequences whatsoever. It means you shouldn’t face legal consequences.

 

[Xantippe]

These policies are not the law. In fact, someone could have a discrimination case in this day and age over something.

Also, if the law says age of consent = 16 without any exceptions, then yes, too bad if sex happens. The law is the law, and the courts will read it as such. Some places have laws with exceptions. For instance, you can’t be in a sexual relationship with someone who is 16 if you have a professional power relationship over them.

If people don’t like it, they ought to spend time trying to change the law instead of just incessantly complaining or applying today’s standards and culture in part of the country to a totally different area 41 years ago.

You’re talking as though the law is the only available penalty.

There’s also social disapproval and refusal to hire or vote for or fund or otherwise support their political campaign.

 

[Xantippe]

ROFL, you are moving the goal posts

Where is someone giving 'hook up" advice on CAF?

I said pickup, not hookup. What you see a lot of is guys assuming that they can retrofit PUA or Red Pill advice to achieve “success” with women, and that the techniques will work just as well to find a virgin trad Catholic bride as to pick up a one night stand. Of course, this is absolutely risible and I try to talk these guys out of the idea, but it’s a Sisyphean task.

And yes, CAF has a large minority of posters who are influenced by the Red Pill/PUA/MGTOW/MRA world.

This is not exactly a big secret.

I don’t know of anyone who is a red pill person who would say that or has said that.

StarshipTrooper is a Red Pill guy (in the manosphere sense), and he just said it in this thread and I quoted him.

It is a typical Red Pill-ism.

 

[PetraG]

Again, I wasn’t responding to non-consensual acts.

I was responding to the idea that legal exceptions would be made if the law says someone who is 16 can consent to sex.

I’m a bit thick, but I’m catching on. Sorry about that.

 

[Xantippe]

I was responding to the idea that legal exceptions would be made if the law says someone who is 16 can consent to sex.

I don’t think anybody was saying that.

 

[PetraG]

Which is why I’d advise avoiding people like this.

I don’t think the day will ever come when the prospect of public disapproval is going to stop cads from trying to seduce the naive, no. It never stopped them before, and to be blunt I don’t think we have the stomach for the long-term shunning that used to happen to those who were deemed guilty of anti-social behavior.

People make mistakes and even if there are consequences those don’t go on forever. The opportunistic are always going to take advantage of that. Those with a conscience always suffer more from the adverse consequences when they act in an anti-social way than the people with anti-social personalities do. The sociopaths just count it as the price of doing business with the human race.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m wondering how many accounts on this site either just have a grudge and that’s why they lean feminist or MRA or are looking for any and every excuse to politicize the conversation to virtue-signal left-wing values just so they can say they aren’t right-wing in front of their “friends”.

Let’s try Occam’s Razor and see how it works for us:

Let’s assume that every long-term poster with historically consistent views actually means the stuff that they say.

I am going to do you the favor of assuming you mean what you say, and I’d like you to do the rest of us the favor of assuming that we mean what we say, rather than that we are voicing views we don’t really hold to impress third parties who aren’t reading this.

Please bear in mind that a number of people participating in this thread are victims of sexual abuse or rape, so that for many of us, we have concrete experience of the stuff we are talking and it’s not just an academic exercise.

 

[Theo520]

I said pickup, not hookup. What you see a lot of is guys assuming that they can retrofit PUA or Red Pill advice to achieve “success” with women, and that the techniques will work just as well to find a virgin trad Catholic bride as to pick up a one night stand. Of course, this is absolutely risible and I try to talk these guys out of the idea, but it’s a Sisyphean task.

And yes, CAF has a large minority of posters who are influenced by the Red Pill/PUA/MGTOW/MRA world.

This is not exactly a big secret.

You are bringing a lot of baggage to the discussion. I don’t really know what you are talking about regarding Red Pill/PUA/MGTOW/MRA. Those are new acronyms to me. I also don’t recall seeing them explicitly posted.

Perhaps you could start a seperate thread on that topic, and I’ll learn what you mean.

pickup & hookup are pretty much the same thing IMO, but I also don’t recall seeing ‘pickup’ advice on CAF, just questions about finding a good Catholic girl or boy.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Nope. No sealioning allowed. Unless your Google is broken you can look them up all by your onsies.