Primitive brains in action

[Telstra]

Everyone was young once.
I don't remember i have thought about "You only live once" before i did stuff.

 

[carey579]

This was an eye opener for me. Didn't know it was that bad, it's really scary.

Jesus, pass the burqa already.

Oh my goodness the comments on that video. Why do I bother?

Exactly it's so depressing and apparently she's even receiving rape threats.

 

[pat grimshaw]

...she's even receiving..

This a post-modern, fictional and highly-edited video using actors and actresses working to a script.

 

[Telstra]

This was an eye opener for me. Didn't know it was that bad, it's really scary.



Exactly it's so depressing and apparently she's even receiving rape threats.

Those men saying Hello to her is scary ?

 

[Kabluey]

...with plenty of attractive women, yet I never heard a single instance of this come-on language. Could it be because I didn't go to rough neighborhoods where crudeness may be more tolerated?

Harassment would need to reach a level of persistence, following a rebuff, to make it to the standard. Merely speaking to a woman isn't harassment. Merely making a sexual interest known isn't harassment. Merely being crude or unmannered isn't harassment.

But you aren't one of those attractive women. Ask one who lives there what she thinks.

Persistent approaches do feel a whole lot like harassment when you're the target of it.
The harasser might be plural, but they serially harass multiple targets each.

 

[kallipolis]

Was it the same in Manhattan as Queens as Yonkers as the Bronx? Unlikely.

Highly relevant...as is the time of day...

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I spent a few days in NYC this summer, amid crowds of hundreds and thousands, with plenty of attractive women, yet I never heard a single instance of this come-on language. Could it be because I didn't go to rough neighborhoods where crudeness may be more tolerated?

Harassment would need to reach a level of persistence, following a rebuff, to make it to the standard. Merely speaking to a woman isn't harassment. Merely making a sexual interest known isn't harassment. Merely being crude or unmannered isn't harassment.

The video itself might be flawed but at the same time these instances exist and it doesn't make anyone feel comfortable. No one is asking these men for compliments or unwanted comments and a few were shown to have gotten irritated because she didn't thank them, as if she had to. The problem here is that since these are "compliments" means that it should be "OK" for people to yell that at you unwarranted. That you should get the attention that these people assume you're seeking. And that you should acknowledge them for giving them the compliments.

These comments would be different if the women was actually standing there talking to them in a conversation, but they're not. They're yelling them down street blocks amongst many other people, not only drawing attention to the women herself but also making her a target for other men to do the same. Especially if she were to acknowledge any of those comments.

My problem with your response is that I don't get the idea that you're just criticizing the video, which I could understand. It seems like you're trying to excuse the behavior just because it isn't considered harassment. That it doesn't matter if it makes these women feel uncomfortable because it isn't considered harassment. And as for not hearing it yourself when you were in NY, it is irrelevant and a lazy way to try and discredit the video.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

As for lazy reasoning in discrediting, no. My personal attribution was every bit as relevant as the subject woman's experience,

No, just no.

And before anyone zooms in on the irrelevancy of attire, exactly when will dressing in a way to be sexually appealing become relevant, as we're not talking about raped or physical assault, we're talking about verbal come-ons? The original burk-ha reference was one end of the spectrum, and a two piece would be at the other end on the street. To say that no attire should ever invite attention is deliberately disingenuous and puts blinders on in regard to what motivates anyone to dress in a certain way. Courts have rightly ruled that it is not an excuse for violence, but one cannot wear a sequined bodice and then complain that onlookers remarked about it. Just because a sexy tight black outfit with purple shoes is less splashy doesn't mean the attire wasn't chosen for sex appeal.

I want to pick this out to say that no one said anything about people using attire to get attention, no one is being disingenuous. This is a new argument you're creating.

Now, yes there are people who probably wear things to draw attention but drawing attention is not an invitation. Which is a problem with this whole thing. Just because some one might dress a certain way to be noticed, doesn't mean it is an invitation for people to say or do what they want. Which is why I personally have a problem with "cat-calling", the second a women recognizes the comment or "compliment" it becomes an invitation to people or others to do the same.

Secondly, let's not assume everyone who dresses nice or "sexy" is doing so for the sake of attention. Maybe there is a possibility that people like the way they look in certain things and something feels sexy in them. So they wear what they wear because it makes them comfortable, not for anyone else. The fact of the matter is it is a matter of perspective that said individual is purposely dressing in a way to be provocative, but at the same time another viewer might not see it that way. So to draw attention to the attire is nothing more then trying to make excuses for bad/rude behavior.

Such propaganda should not be accepted at valid and relevant without meeting due scrutiny.

Or maybe people should recognize that yes, there is fault behind the video, but at the same time there is a message behind it and that message does indeed have merit. Instead we have people completely throwing away what is being said here because of a bad apple of an example.