I’ve not followed much recently and have no idea who Naomi is or what the situation is so this conversation has been fascinating, I feel like the more it’s gone on the less I understand.
So your argument is that she is attractive and walks around half naked which causes sexual frustration in men therefore she has no right to feel uncomfortable when people (i.e. Linus) create situations that would be unacceptable with a more modestly dressed woman?
I can’t say I agree with this reasoning but I would like to understand what you’re saying, I assume you saying her vulva was excused is hyperbolic but could you explain in your view where the line is with dress, what sort of outfits are we taking about for women and men - if you’re wearing shorts what sort of level of sexual comments would I be allowed to make which I wouldn’t were you wearing trousers?
So your argument is that she is attractive and walks around half naked which causes sexual frustration in men
That’s simplifying. My argument is that she is causing harm to frustrated people (assuming that only men are attracted to women is factually wrong, assuming that only men are having difficulties getting their intimate needs fulfilled is equally wrong), and that she is doing so solely for the advantages it procures with regard to her influence.
therefore she has no right to feel uncomfortable
She has every right to feel uncomfortable. It’s not about that, and it has never been. She has no right to aim at harming others for her feelings.
when people (i.e. Linus) create situations that would be unacceptable with a more modestly dressed woman?
What we know for sure is that Linus asked her to come to his hotel in the late evening. Nothing else has ever been proven. From going to his room, to his intents of sexual assault, it is all pure speculation. I know mobs adore harming others based on speculation alone; but it is something we ought to get away from, if we ever want to call ourselves civilized.
I would be the first to want to put Linus’s ass in prison if we can get any proof that he committed, facilitated, and/or ignored sexual misconduct. Against anyone, not just women, not just (semi) public figures. But basing yourself on allegations only is comparable to SWATting: you’re causing harm, from assumptions. Irremediable actions (like loss of life, or trauma) should never be triggered from assumptions. We need actual, irrefutable facts. With, you know, chat logs, since Naomi has them.
could you explain in your view where the line is with dress, what sort of outfits are we taking about for women and men
Yes, absolutely. Basically, since you never know what triggers the random people around you in public spaces (and for online material, what triggers literally anyone), most “usual” attire is okay. As long as it does not highlight any part of your body that is associated with a physiological human need being denied to a large part of the population (men and women alike, that’s not an “incel” thing, no matter how much some people here want to say it), anything works. This is about “best effort”, and mutual respect. It also depends on context. It is totally acceptable to wear tight pants at the gym, because no one is forcing anyone to go to the gym. You can always find gyms that are “women only” or “men only”, etc. However, in the public space, such as a street, wearing tight pants has a totally different meaning. It’s always a question of context, always a question of introspection, and always a question of “am I doing this out of spite because of all the problems society is causing me, or is this this actually acceptable, considering the other problems people have to deal with?”.
And yes, that last question is something almost no-one ever asks themselves. That’s why we’re literally currently devolving. It’s a race to who is going to trigger the “other side” the hardest. It’s easy for algorithms to manage, so that’s what surfaced over the last decades, but it’s absolutely unhealthy. And it won’t end well.
I’ve not followed much recently and have no idea who Naomi is or what the situation is so this conversation has been fascinating, I feel like the more it’s gone on the less I understand.
So your argument is that she is attractive and walks around half naked which causes sexual frustration in men therefore she has no right to feel uncomfortable when people (i.e. Linus) create situations that would be unacceptable with a more modestly dressed woman?
I can’t say I agree with this reasoning but I would like to understand what you’re saying, I assume you saying her vulva was excused is hyperbolic but could you explain in your view where the line is with dress, what sort of outfits are we taking about for women and men - if you’re wearing shorts what sort of level of sexual comments would I be allowed to make which I wouldn’t were you wearing trousers?
That’s simplifying. My argument is that she is causing harm to frustrated people (assuming that only men are attracted to women is factually wrong, assuming that only men are having difficulties getting their intimate needs fulfilled is equally wrong), and that she is doing so solely for the advantages it procures with regard to her influence.
She has every right to feel uncomfortable. It’s not about that, and it has never been. She has no right to aim at harming others for her feelings.
What we know for sure is that Linus asked her to come to his hotel in the late evening. Nothing else has ever been proven. From going to his room, to his intents of sexual assault, it is all pure speculation. I know mobs adore harming others based on speculation alone; but it is something we ought to get away from, if we ever want to call ourselves civilized.
I would be the first to want to put Linus’s ass in prison if we can get any proof that he committed, facilitated, and/or ignored sexual misconduct. Against anyone, not just women, not just (semi) public figures. But basing yourself on allegations only is comparable to SWATting: you’re causing harm, from assumptions. Irremediable actions (like loss of life, or trauma) should never be triggered from assumptions. We need actual, irrefutable facts. With, you know, chat logs, since Naomi has them.
Yes, absolutely. Basically, since you never know what triggers the random people around you in public spaces (and for online material, what triggers literally anyone), most “usual” attire is okay. As long as it does not highlight any part of your body that is associated with a physiological human need being denied to a large part of the population (men and women alike, that’s not an “incel” thing, no matter how much some people here want to say it), anything works. This is about “best effort”, and mutual respect. It also depends on context. It is totally acceptable to wear tight pants at the gym, because no one is forcing anyone to go to the gym. You can always find gyms that are “women only” or “men only”, etc. However, in the public space, such as a street, wearing tight pants has a totally different meaning. It’s always a question of context, always a question of introspection, and always a question of “am I doing this out of spite because of all the problems society is causing me, or is this this actually acceptable, considering the other problems people have to deal with?”.
And yes, that last question is something almost no-one ever asks themselves. That’s why we’re literally currently devolving. It’s a race to who is going to trigger the “other side” the hardest. It’s easy for algorithms to manage, so that’s what surfaced over the last decades, but it’s absolutely unhealthy. And it won’t end well.