Dear Angle: thank you for saying what I would be saying to Andir if I could think straight.
Dear Andir: what Angle said. I will add that I don't think the implication was that no one could escape; the implication is that it is needlessly hard to escape from such a situation, should one want to. There is no intrinsic problem with women who have long hair, long skirts, no makeup, etc. It is kind of frightening that such women would be ordered to with the putative backup of God. But when they cannot get out, even when they want to... no, that is just no good. So I don't think we're suggesting some sort of governmental smackdown at all. We're trying to think of ideas for citizens to engage in, or governmental help that doesn't directly infringe on the people in question--only helps those who want to change their minds. And, of course, the citizens would not be required to help. This is why it's called grassroots action--no one is ordering you to help.
Please feel free to say that you feel uncomfortable, because in general, as previously stated, I am trying
really hard to keep this place from becoming an echochamber. Just don't appropriate other people's experiences in that way.
You guys realize the context here is when men are making advances and trying to get laid, right? This thing started because somebody made a horrible attempt at hitting on somebody when they shouldn't have.
I believe what she's saying is that she's trying to create a situation where women and men can flirt with each other and both create and accept advances with neither party feeling threatened in the least.
So yes, her actions would be helping men to get laid, if their problem is coming off creepy to an otherwise receptive target. I don't believe she was at all trying to say all men want to have sex with women, and that's all they want.
She was, so far as I can tell, appealing to the segment of the population that is frustrated by navigating boundaries.
Im also kinda itching to join in on the rleigious aspect of this discussion without looking too far back into the discussions here as it is incredibly painful to slog through this thread. I want to present my view on how deprogramming has really hurt people who believe in my faith and that while I understand its use in preventing junk like the Jonestown cult suicides and abusive cults, there would need to be strict guidelines that major religions would have to agree with. That last bit provides a good deal of strife over the issue and will prevent anything from being done I know, but the summary of my argument is that the extreme end of the control spectrum is far scarier than than the far end of the freedom spectrum.
Im terrible at debating though, and I feel any attempt at arguent on he web over this will quickly move away from a discussion on how much freedom of speech we should allow to the evils of my faith and ideals. Discussing stuff like this is very close to various lines that are easily crossed because of a shale piles worth of chips on peoples shoulders. I know Vector is trying her best to maintain a nice free atmosphere of discussion and I wish her more power, but this is indeed quite intimidating to walk into.
I would really like to hear what you have to say.