'I saw you f***ing grab at her boob': Moment heavy metal singer launches furious tirade against a spectator for groping a woman during his concert

First topic message reminder :


Architects frontman Sam Carter stopped the show at the Lowlands Festival in the Netherlands to berate the culprit with a furious rant.

He said: 'So I've been going over in my f***ing mind about whether I should say something or not about what I saw in that last song. And do you know what? I'm going to f***ing say it.'

'I saw a girl - a woman - crowdsurfing over here, and I'm not going to f***ing point the piece of s*** out who did it, but I saw you f***ing grab at her boob, I saw it and it's f***ing disgusting and there is no f***ing place for that s***.'
'It is not your f***ing body, it is NOT your f***ing body, and you do not f***ing grab at someone. Not at my f***ing show.'

'So if you feel like doing that again, walk out there, f*** off and don't come back.
'Let's keep this going, let's keep this a f***ing safe place for everybody, and let's have a f***ing good time.'
The organisation SafeGigs4Women wrote on Twitter: 'We've had a flurry of activity overnight thanks to Architects thanks so much for what you did. We need more bands to do the same'.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4805822/I-saw-f-ing-grab-boob.html

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, you make a good argument, HT.  But a lot of the argument is based upon societal presumptions...which in turn are based upon roles and expectations, that are the same source of objectification of women generally.  

You say:



Again, if I were to ask "any woman", odds are she would be under the influence of the same presumptions and expectations.  Maybe the answer is that such roles and expectations are more real than we think...and women's liberation that denies it, is all a bunch of BS.

Actually, I have had my arse grabbed, and it might have caused a right cross had it not happened in a gay bar where the owner (straight) was a client of mine (lol...also straight).  Lol.  My client owned a chain of bars and restaurants, and the biggest money maker was the gay bar (go figure).  Once we met and had a drink at the bar, where it happened.  Mostly, it was funny...but I didn't feel vulnerable, and I can understand that it (vulnerability) can make a big difference.

I'm not sure whether men feel differently about being 'felt up' by women.   They might feel more outrage at being touched up by a gay man.    Clearly, you didn't feel threatened.   But women often do as we're more vulnerable for obvious reasons.   Also, it's a lot to do with respect, or the lack of it.   I'm not sure what you mean by expectations and presumptions.    It's black and white. Where does women's lib say it's ok for a woman to be groped?  That's not equality.  That's abuse.

i remember quite some time back, some discussion programme, cant for the life of me remember what might even have been loose women or some such but a guy on there was saying ''the thing is women can get together and cat call at a bloke, maybe on a building site, and it's all jolly good banter and the bloke grins and waves and all is well but when it's the other way round it would be abuse. people dont realise that women can be terrifying especially when they work as a pack''. although there was an acknowledgement that what he said was true, everyone still seemed to find it funny,,,,,

That skank flashing her fanny is about as far from liberated as its possible to get.

Miffs2 wrote:That skank flashing her fanny is about as far from liberated as its possible to get.

She clearly is far more sexually liberated than you.

Thorin wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:That skank flashing her fanny is about as far from liberated as its possible to get.

She clearly is far more sexually liberated than you.

Hahahahahaha
Didge you are good value sometimes!

gelico wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I'm not sure whether men feel differently about being 'felt up' by women.   They might feel more outrage at being touched up by a gay man.    Clearly, you didn't feel threatened.   But women often do as we're more vulnerable for obvious reasons.   Also, it's a lot to do with respect, or the lack of it.   I'm not sure what you mean by expectations and presumptions.    It's black and white. Where does women's lib say it's ok for a woman to be groped?  That's not equality.  That's abuse.

i remember quite some time back, some discussion programme, cant for the life of me remember what might even have been loose women or some such but a guy on there was saying ''the thing is women can get together and cat call at a bloke, maybe on a building site, and it's all jolly good banter and the bloke grins and waves and all is well but when it's the other way round it would be abuse.  people dont realise that women can be terrifying especially when they work as a pack''.  although there was an acknowledgement that what he said was true, everyone still seemed to find it funny,,,,,

I find any kind of sexual heckling unpleasant, be it directed at male or female. I find gangs of drunken women thinking they are the equal of street yobs to be insulting to my sex. The adage, behave like a lady and you get treated like one, is very true. I can't speak for all men, but my husband finds it abhorrent when women behave like that. I would imagine most men would prefer their women to be ladylike in public.

Miffs2 wrote:

Thorin wrote:

She clearly is far more sexually liberated than you.

Hahahahahaha
Didge you are good value sometimes!

At least now we know he likes his women common as muck and rough as a bear's arse.  

'Come on, love, I'll take you out for a fish supper and we can stand on the corner by the Twat and Trumpet and you can let the punters finger your minge. That'll show those geraniums on Newsfix what I know about sophistication and women's lib!'

HoratioTarr wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

Hahahahahaha
Didge you are good value sometimes!

At least now we know he likes his women common as muck and rough as a bear's arse.  

'Come on, love, I'll take you out for a fish supper and we can stand on the corner by the Twat and Trumpet and you can let the punters finger your minge. That'll show those geraniums on Newsfix what I know about sophistication and women's lib!'

So again what a poor view to think of people, just because they enjoy sex.
I love how you think enjoying sex with multiple different people makes someone common?

You see how it is negative people like you that place labels onto people.

So are you saying having sex is bad now?

I like any women, no matter if sexually liberated, if physically attracted too of course

You see you are prime example of years of Christian dogma, that has made a view that sex is somehow taboo. You have been institutionalised by such dogma.

I mean it is you using the common (Anglo saxon) terminology above.

You see again you have been brainwashed to believe somehow sex is wrong

HoratioTarr wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

Hahahahahaha
Didge you are good value sometimes!

At least now we know he likes his women common as muck and rough as a bear's arse.  

'Come on, love, I'll take you out for a fish supper and we can stand on the corner by the Twat and Trumpet and you can let the punters finger your minge. That'll show those geraniums on Newsfix what I know about sophistication and women's lib!'

FFS!!!!

Miffs2 wrote:

Thorin wrote:

She clearly is far more sexually liberated than you.

Hahahahahaha
Didge you are good value sometimes!

Of course I am Nems

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, you make a good argument, HT.  But a lot of the argument is based upon societal presumptions...which in turn are based upon roles and expectations, that are the same source of objectification of women generally.  

You say:



Again, if I were to ask "any woman", odds are she would be under the influence of the same presumptions and expectations.  Maybe the answer is that such roles and expectations are more real than we think...and women's liberation that denies it, is all a bunch of BS.

Actually, I have had my arse grabbed, and it might have caused a right cross had it not happened in a gay bar where the owner (straight) was a client of mine (lol...also straight).  Lol.  My client owned a chain of bars and restaurants, and the biggest money maker was the gay bar (go figure).  Once we met and had a drink at the bar, where it happened.  Mostly, it was funny...but I didn't feel vulnerable, and I can understand that it (vulnerability) can make a big difference.

I'm not sure whether men feel differently about being 'felt up' by women.   They might feel more outrage at being touched up by a gay man.    Clearly, you didn't feel threatened.   But women often do as we're more vulnerable for obvious reasons.   Also, it's a lot to do with respect, or the lack of it.   I'm not sure what you mean by expectations and presumptions.    It's black and white. Where does women's lib say it's ok for a woman to be groped?  That's not equality.  That's abuse.

By "expectations and presumptions", I meant to reference classic conventional thought, sexist and old-fashioned though it is.  Feminist argue that we must stop objectifying the female body.  But I point out, if we do we can no longer complain heavily if someone touches a breast or ass.  Without objectification, its that same as if it happened to a male.  Ya know, meh...

Actually, because I live in San Francisco, and am much more tolerant of gays and lesbians, I'm probably less outraged by any touching.  I take it as a joke about him, not me.  But you are right about the element of threatening (my word: vulnerability).  That's why I left leeway for that argument: a woman can be threatened where a man might laugh it off.

I have slapped a couple of males for inappropriate touching.
Whether a woman feels threatened or not isn't really the point...NO man should touch a womans body sexually without being invited.
They can leer, stare, think what they like, and as long as they keep their hands and their dirty thoughts to themselves....I think most women would agree with that.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I'm not sure whether men feel differently about being 'felt up' by women.   They might feel more outrage at being touched up by a gay man.    Clearly, you didn't feel threatened.   But women often do as we're more vulnerable for obvious reasons.   Also, it's a lot to do with respect, or the lack of it.   I'm not sure what you mean by expectations and presumptions.    It's black and white. Where does women's lib say it's ok for a woman to be groped?  That's not equality.  That's abuse.

By "expectations and presumptions", I meant to reference classic conventional thought, sexist and old-fashioned though it is.  Feminist argue that we must stop objectifying the female body.  But I point out, if we do we can no longer complain heavily if someone touches a breast or ass.  Without objectification, its that same as if it happened to a male.  Ya know, meh...

Actually, because I live in San Francisco, and am much more tolerant of gays and lesbians, I'm probably less outraged by any touching.  I take it as a joke about him, not me.  But you are right about the element of threatening (my word: vulnerability).  That's why I left leeway for that argument: a woman can be threatened where a man might laugh it off.

I don't see how not objectifying the female form has anything to do with touching it up. It's about personal space and respect. I wouldn't grab a stranger's knee or hand, or stroke their head. It's just not done.

Syl wrote:I have slapped a couple of males for inappropriate touching.
Whether a woman feels threatened or not isn't really the point...NO man should  touch a womans body sexually without being invited.
They can leer, stare, think what they like, and as long as they keep their hands and their dirty thoughts to themselves....I think most women would agree with that.

I used to get whistled at a lot. Most younger women do. Part of me hated it, because it embarrassed me, but the other half of me felt flattered. It would all depend on my mood. Why that should be? I can only put it down to the sexual dynamic between male and female that's always been there and always will and that I found it amusing that I turned heads. And while most feminists would perhaps be outraged at the fact that public male appreciation made a woman feel good, sometimes - that's just a fact between men and women. The feminists who shriek about it the most are usually singularly unattractive. I knew one who refused to shave her legs or pits, wore no make up and swore up hill and down dale that she'd never don a glittery costume and dance for 'men'. Next thing you know, she's shed a few pounds, discovered she had a good figure and is prancing around in restaurants in full war paint and sequins. So much for her 'principles.'

I'm sure most men like being admired too. And ancient as I now am, I can still admire the male form.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:I have slapped a couple of males for inappropriate touching.
Whether a woman feels threatened or not isn't really the point...NO man should  touch a womans body sexually without being invited.
They can leer, stare, think what they like, and as long as they keep their hands and their dirty thoughts to themselves....I think most women would agree with that.

I used to get whistled at a lot.   Most younger women do.   Part of me hated it, because it embarrassed me, but the other half of me felt flattered.  It would all depend on my mood.    Why that should be?   I can only put it down to the sexual dynamic between male and female that's always been there and always will  and that I found it amusing that I turned heads.   And while most feminists would perhaps be outraged at the fact that public male appreciation made a woman feel good, sometimes -  that's just a fact between men and women.  The feminists who shriek about it the most are usually singularly unattractive.   I knew one who refused to shave her legs or pits, wore no make up and swore up hill and down dale that she'd never don a glittery costume and dance for 'men'.   Next thing you know, she's shed a few pounds, discovered she had a good figure and is prancing around in restaurants in full war paint and sequins.   So much for her 'principles.'  

I'm sure most men like being admired too.   And ancient as I now am, I can still admire the male form.  

I bet you still get admiring glances...you just don't notice them anymore.

Men are more subtle now than they used to be. My son is a scaffolder and working on building sites none of the men he works with, whatever their age wolf whistle anymore...its just not done.

I never liked overt displays of appreciation...(that's putting it politely) though I do see that most of it is not meant to be offensive....its just a bit embarrassing.

H/T, I'll send you my picture. Good for a laugh.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

Hahahahahaha
Didge you are good value sometimes!

At least now we know he likes his women common as muck and rough as a bear's arse.  

'Come on, love, I'll take you out for a fish supper and we can stand on the corner by the Twat and Trumpet and you can let the punters finger your minge. That'll show those geraniums on Newsfix what I know about sophistication and women's lib!'

Twat and trumpet, I love it
Excellent post HT!

HoratioTarr wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

Hahahahahaha
Didge you are good value sometimes!

At least now we know he likes his women common as muck and rough as a bear's arse.  

'Come on, love, I'll take you out for a fish supper and we can stand on the corner by the Twat and Trumpet and you can let the punters finger your minge. That'll show those geraniums on Newsfix what I know about sophistication and women's lib!'

If men did that, would they have fish fingers?

nicko wrote:H/T,   I'll send you my picture.      Good for a laugh.

I bet you were a head turner in your prime.

magica wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

At least now we know he likes his women common as muck and rough as a bear's arse.  

'Come on, love, I'll take you out for a fish supper and we can stand on the corner by the Twat and Trumpet and you can let the punters finger your minge. That'll show those geraniums on Newsfix what I know about sophistication and women's lib!'

If men did that, would they have fish fingers?  

Finger licking good...

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

By "expectations and presumptions", I meant to reference classic conventional thought, sexist and old-fashioned though it is.  Feminist argue that we must stop objectifying the female body.  But I point out, if we do we can no longer complain heavily if someone touches a breast or ass.  Without objectification, its that same as if it happened to a male.  Ya know, meh...

Actually, because I live in San Francisco, and am much more tolerant of gays and lesbians, I'm probably less outraged by any touching.  I take it as a joke about him, not me.  But you are right about the element of threatening (my word: vulnerability).  That's why I left leeway for that argument: a woman can be threatened where a man might laugh it off.

I don't see how not objectifying the female form has anything to do with touching it up.   It's about personal space and respect.  I wouldn't grab a stranger's knee or hand, or stroke their head.  It's just not done.  

Meh...personal, intimate...those are things that come from objectification. Two men can slap each other on the back, and not think a thing about it. If you did it to a woman--because of objectification--she would immediately take offense.

We need to change the culture before we change the assumptions (of offense). That's what feminism is all about.

Quill, if Man A groped the genitals of Man B without Man B's consent, Man B would object. That's the point.

@lex wrote:Quill, if Man A groped the genitals of Man B without Man B's consent, Man B would object. That's the point.

Yes, I know.  But that is the extreme and obvious case.  Here, we are talking about outside, on the fringes of that (genitals), and it is there that convention dictates our values.  Some woman can slap a man on the ass and say, Atta boy!, and it's perfectly acceptable, indeed welcome encouragement.  But if someone slaps Taylor Swift on the ass, it is assumed to be a different meaning.

That is a man-made weltanschauung.  What is different is the host of presumptions that we adopt surrounding the action.  It presumes that when the woman performs the action, it means encouragement; however, when a man performs the action, it means he is trying to cop a feel...a move toward sexual intercourse.

That is old-world, one-dimensional sexist thinking.  It says patting a male's ass can have a variety of meanings, but on a female's ass it is only for one thing.  That, by definition, is an objectification of the female body.  Old world, one-dimensional sexism is what feminism is trying to combat.

BTW...I'm merely pointing out the complexity of our sexist culture.  It could be racism or ethnocentrism, or anything else that pervades our culture.  Culture has depth.  But, I would not want to stroke Taylor Swift's ass.

Original Quill wrote:

@lex wrote:Quill, if Man A groped the genitals of Man B without Man B's consent, Man B would object. That's the point.

Yes, I know.  But that is the extreme and obvious case.  Here, we are talking about outside, on the fringes of that (genitals), and it is there that convention dictates our values.  Some woman can slap a man on the ass and say, Atta boy!, and it's perfectly acceptable, indeed welcome encouragement.  But if someone slaps Taylor Swift on the ass, it is assumed to be a different meaning.

That is a man-made weltanschauung.  What is different is the host of presumptions that we adopt surrounding the action.  It presumes that when the woman performs the action, it means encouragement; however, when a man performs the action, it means he is trying to cop a feel...a move toward sexual intercourse.  That is old-world sexist thinking.  It says patting a male's ass can have a variety of meanings, but on a female's ass is only for one thing...objectification.  Old world sexism is what feminism is trying to combat.

BTW...I'm merely pointing out the complexity of our sexist culture.  It could be racism or ethnocentrism, or anything else that pervades our culture.  Culture has depth.  But, I would not want to stroke Taylor Swift's ass.

He didn't playfully slap Taylor Swifts ass, which would have been bad enough anyway....he groped her bare arse furtively whilst posing for a photo with her and his girlfriend....he is a sneaky sexual groper who got his comeuppance.

I'm not sure why you seem to be defending such a creep....would you be so lax about this if it was your daughter or wife being groped?

Taylor Swift is a great role model for young girls, she gives out the message that you cant sexually touch a female without permission....those days are long gone.

Syl wrote:He didn't playfully slap Taylor Swifts ass, which would have been bad enough anyway....he groped her bare arse furtively whilst posing for a photo with her and his girlfriend....he is a sneaky sexual groper who got his comeuppance.

You and I don’t know that.  We didn’t see it.  But we immediately assume things…and that is because our culture dictates our perception.  It shows how frequently we have to correct our culturally-dictated beliefs.

Syl wrote:I'm not sure why you seem to be defending such a creep....would you be so lax about this if it was your daughter or wife being groped?

It’s not defending, but pointing out the complexities of bias in our culture.  And I do it because I am a feminist, as opposed to sexism as to racism.  I have also been known to point out how insidious and deep runs racist veins in our culture.  We don’t abandon our convictions just because they are complex.

Syl wrote:Taylor Swift is a great role model for young girls, she gives out the message that you cant sexually touch a female without permission....those days are long gone.

Meh…she strikes me as petty and personal.  Doesn’t she have running feuds with Kim Kardashian, Katy Perry, Hannah Montana, Nicki Minaj, Rihanna, Lady Gaga, Demi Lovato, Lorde, and others (the list doesn’t even include the males, whom I have left out because we are talking about feminist values).  

I mention these feuds because I believe—so far from her being a “great role model for young girls”—she is kinda a down and dirty social pariah.  I think it’s rather poignant that she comes up as the poster child for the sexist claimant in a Sheena-the-victim lawsuit.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:He didn't playfully slap Taylor Swifts ass, which would have been bad enough anyway....he groped her bare arse furtively whilst posing for a photo with her and his girlfriend....he is a sneaky sexual groper who got his comeuppance.

You and I don’t know that.  We didn’t see it.  But we immediately assume things…and that is because our culture dictates our perception.  It shows how frequently we have to correct our culturally-dictated beliefs.

Well the judge believed her not him....so that's the verdict. She did apparently say something in reference to his grope the second the photo was taken, and she was believed on that too. He also was acting true to previous form.

Syl wrote:I'm not sure why you seem to be defending such a creep....would you be so lax about this if it was your daughter or wife being groped?

It’s not defending, but pointing out the complexities of bias in our culture.  And I do it because I am a feminist, as opposed to sexism as to racism.  I have also been known to point out how insidious and deep runs racist veins in our culture.  We don’t abandon our convictions just because they are complex.

Why is it biased? If a woman grabbed a male inappropriately and he objected he has as much right as a woman does to object.
Its feminism that has freed women from having to put with being treated like sexual objects at the whim of males, so you declaring you are a 'feminist' contradicts your views here.

Syl wrote:Taylor Swift is a great role model for young girls, she gives out the message that you cant sexually touch a female without permission....those days are long gone.

Meh…she strikes me as petty and personal.  Doesn’t she have running feuds with Kim Kardashian, Katy Perry, Hannah Montana, Nicki Minaj, Rihanna, Lady Gaga, Demi Lovato, Lorde, and others (the list doesn’t even include the males, whom I have left out because we are talking about feminist values).  

I don't know about her other feuds, could they be either manufactured by the press? or maybe publicised to keep her and the others you mention in the papers? People do  like a bit of harmless gossip to pass the time, its all smoke and mirrors and par for the course with these youngsters.

I mention these feuds because I believe—so far from her being a “great role model for young girls”—she is kinda a down and dirty social pariah.  I think it’s rather poignant that she comes up as the poster child for the sexist claimant in a Sheena-the-victim lawsuit.

I think you under estimate her popularity Quill.....She is the exact opposite of a 'victim', she stands up for herself and is not afraid to speak out. So she appeals to young girls because not only does she empower them with her personal life, she sings about teenage problems (from her own experience) and she relates to millions... and she certainly is a positive role model, I don't see pics of her shoving coke up her nose or rolling about drunk in the papers.....plus she is very pretty.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I don't see how not objectifying the female form has anything to do with touching it up.   It's about personal space and respect.  I wouldn't grab a stranger's knee or hand, or stroke their head.  It's just not done.  

Meh...personal, intimate...those are things that come from objectification.  Two men can slap each other on the back, and not think a thing about it.  If you did it to a woman--because of objectification--she would immediately take offense.

We need to change the culture before we change the assumptions (of offense).  That's what feminism is all about.

It's not just sexual or intimate parts of the body that it is inappropriate to touch. Any part of the body shouldn't be touched by strangers or uninvited. We all have our personal space. To encroach on that, is not right.

HoratioTarr wrote:
Architects frontman Sam Carter stopped the show at the Lowlands Festival in the Netherlands to berate the culprit with a furious rant.

He said: 'So I've been going over in my f***ing mind about whether I should say something or not about what I saw in that last song. And do you know what? I'm going to f***ing say it.'

'I saw a girl - a woman - crowdsurfing over here, and I'm not going to f***ing point the piece of s*** out who did it, but I saw you f***ing grab at her boob, I saw it and it's f***ing disgusting and there is no f***ing place for that s***.'
'It is not your f***ing body, it is NOT your f***ing body, and you do not f***ing grab at someone. Not at my f***ing show.'

'So if you feel like doing that again, walk out there, f*** off and don't come back.
'Let's keep this going, let's keep this a f***ing safe place for everybody, and let's have a f***ing good time.'
The organisation SafeGigs4Women wrote on Twitter: 'We've had a flurry of activity overnight thanks to Architects thanks so much for what you did. We need more bands to do the same'.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4805822/I-saw-f-ing-grab-boob.html

Wow. Bet Trump felt rather embarrassed at being caught like that.....

Syl wrote:Why is it biased? If a woman grabbed a male inappropriately and he objected he has as much right as a woman does to object.

Why is it biased?  Because it presumes that the woman is a sex object, while allowing that the man may not be.  You say in your hypothetical, "and he objected..."  But he is not permitted to object in real life.  That is the very point.  He would be laughed at if he objected.  Males are supposed to be sexual predators, not delicate flowers.  Meanwhile, it's an offense to a woman precisely because we objectify a woman as a sex object.

Syl wrote:Its feminism that has freed women from having to put with being treated like sexual objects at the whim of males, so you declaring you are a 'feminist' contradicts your views here.

But a much deeper feminism wants to get at the psychological roots of sexism.  Take the case of Craig v. Boren (1976).  Oklahoma State maintained different drinking ages between men and women for the consumption of alcohol: women could drink at a lower age.  Ordinarily, that would seem gender-neutral, and not sex discrimination.  If anything, it was more permissive and less burdensome on women.

But in evidence it came out that the State favored younger drinking for females because of a presumption that they needed to get on with their socializing...women, after all, needed to get on with bare feet, marriage, and pregnancy.  That sexist presumption was buried deeper down in the culture.

The idea that woman should never be touched, but men will be laughed at if they complain, is revealing of another sub-cultural presumption.  That is, that women are objects of sex, while men have no reason for complaints: women are properly objects to be bedded, while men are not.  It is predicated on sexist premises, just as is the premise that women may drink at a lower age because they must hurry up and get pregnant.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Why is it biased? If a woman grabbed a male inappropriately and he objected he has as much right as a woman does to object.

Why is it biased?  Because it presumes that the woman is a sex object, while allowing that the man may not be.  You say in your hypothetical, "and he objected..."  But he is not permitted to object in real life.  That is the very point.  He would be laughed at if he objected.  Males are supposed to be sexual predators, not delicate flowers.  Meanwhile, it's an offense to a woman precisely because we objectify a woman as a sex object.

Syl wrote:Its feminism that has freed women from having to put with being treated like sexual objects at the whim of males, so you declaring you are a 'feminist' contradicts your views here.

But a much deeper feminism wants to get at the psychological roots of sexism.  Take the case of Craig v. Boren (1976).  Oklahoma State maintained different drinking ages between men and women for the consumption of alcohol: women could drink at a lower age.  Ordinarily, that would seem gender-neutral, and not sex discrimination.  If anything, it was more permissive and less burdensome on women.

But in evidence it came out that the State favored younger drinking for females because of a presumption that they needed to get on with their socializing...women, after all, needed to get on with bare feet, marriage, and pregnancy.  That sexist presumption was buried deeper down in the culture.

The idea that woman should never be touched, but men will be laughed at if they complain, is revealing of another sub-cultural presumption.  That is, that women are objects of sex, while men have no reason for complaints: women are properly objects to be bedded, while men are not.  It is predicated on sexist premises, just as is the premise that women may drink at a lower age because they must hurry up and get pregnant.

In your neck of the woods maybe.

"Men are not objects" try working in a factory were the vast majority are Women.

Don't mind me I'm still enjoying "twat & trumpet"

nicko wrote:"Men are not objects"     try working in a factory were the vast majority are Women.

Yes, feminism is built on many Marxist ideas: man, the artisan-producer, went social during industrialism, with many men producing in assembly-line fashion -> socialism...with Marx, it became the organic kind of socialism, meaning communism.

The reason why women end up in those jobs has to do with profit. With women the margin of return increases because they are cheaper as producers, or laborers.

I'm pleased to see that you are keeping up with your Marxist studies, nicko.

I do my best mate

I do my best mate

Original Quill wrote:

@lex wrote:Quill, if Man A groped the genitals of Man B without Man B's consent, Man B would object. That's the point.

Yes, I know.  But that is the extreme and obvious case.  Here, we are talking about outside, on the fringes of that (genitals), and it is there that convention dictates our values.  Some woman can slap a man on the ass and say, Atta boy!, and it's perfectly acceptable, indeed welcome encouragement.  But if someone slaps Taylor Swift on the ass, it is assumed to be a different meaning.

That is a man-made weltanschauung.  What is different is the host of presumptions that we adopt surrounding the action.  It presumes that when the woman performs the action, it means encouragement; however, when a man performs the action, it means he is trying to cop a feel...a move toward sexual intercourse.

That is old-world, one-dimensional sexist thinking.  It says patting a male's ass can have a variety of meanings, but on a female's ass it is only for one thing.  That, by definition, is an objectification of the female body.  Old world, one-dimensional sexism is what feminism is trying to combat.

BTW...I'm merely pointing out the complexity of our sexist culture.  It could be racism or ethnocentrism, or anything else that pervades our culture.  Culture has depth.  But, I would not want to stroke Taylor Swift's ass.

The OP describes an allegation of a woman having a sexual organ groped. It's hard to see why you view that as less "extreme and obvious" a case than when the same thing happens to Man B.

If Man A, gets groped by Man B, and i'm Man A, Man B gets a knuckle sandwich !