Regarding catcalling...

[Tubbsalot]

Yes, I'm aware the historical image of women as asexual, pure beings who only engage in sex for procreation is not exactly accurate. However, even in sexually libertine environments the instances of female catcalling approach zero, while the male equivalent remains through the roof. (In my anecdotal experience.) Given that female catcalling doesn't seem affected by the social environment I'd suggest it's probably not the main factor in that disparity.

Please describe the acceptance of female promiscuity and women dating several men openly in these societies that are likely truly egalitarian or matriarchal, versus the equivalent behaviors among men.

Sure, they're generally less accepted. But not dramatically so, in the societies I'm talking about. Certainly not enough to explain the enormous disparity in catcalling, except as a relatively minor component.

[North Pacific Economic Commonwealth]

the prevalence of promiscuous sex among gay guys (in contrast to lesbians)

Sure you mean dyadic cisgender ones?

Of course cis people won't be freed from gender in a cissexist, patriarchal society.

Dyadic?

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Sure you mean dyadic cisgender ones?

Of course cis people won't be freed from gender in a cissexist, patriarchal society.

Dyadic?

Not intersex.

XY chromosomes, testes, testicular reproductive system, [higher levels of testosterone]-based endocrine gearing and function.

XX chromosomes, ovaries, ovarian reproductive system, [higher levels of estradiol and progesterone]-based endocrine gearing and function.

[WestRedMaple]

Irregardless of being a dick, it's still legal. There is no legality on 'being a dick' in the United States.

Hate speech, harassment, assault, battery, etc. I'd even say murder is a dick move.

Sure, but being a dick move isn't why it is illegal.

[North Pacific Economic Commonwealth]

Dyadic?

Not intersex.

XY chromosomes, testes, testicular reproductive system, [higher levels of testosterone]-based endocrine gearing and function.

XX chromosomes, ovaries, ovarian reproductive system, [higher levels of estradiol and progesterone]-based endocrine gearing and function.

Thank you.

[Talonis]

"This has certainly advanced the Turing Test theory."

So, uh, you gonna make that part of what you said make sense, or just keep insulting me and act like what you said was actually logical?

" I submit that you do not, given that your repsonse to the question "You realize that doing so makes you a dick regardless of its legality" was "Being a dick isn't illegal."

Because, ah, in case you've still failed to notice, this isn't exactly the height of logic.

"Or, that a Turing Test is being failed and we've stumbled into some kind of feedback loop where the tested AI can only respond in one way to a subject regardless of the content. It is unclear at this point which one it is."
""You realize that doing so makes you a dick regardless of its legality""

Not that I'd censor you. You're hilarious.

"I don't need your class to graduate."

Evidently, you do, because you still haven't expressed what you meant. Nonsense left unclarified is still nonsense.

"I mean, you can wrap yourself in a flag and hum America the Beautiful afterwards while hand feeding a bald eagle, but you'd still be a dick."
"You said it, I didn't... "

So are you outright lying here and saying I said, "I mean, you can wrap yourself in a flag and hum America the Beautiful afterwards while hand feeding a bald eagle, but you'd still be a dick." first, or that hand feeding eagles is actually totally a normal thing? Perhaps you should hit me up for that class. I can TG you my e-mail, if you want, and give you help from there.

"Again...not so clear with your continued fixation on legality like it fucking matters."

Danke. Actually, seeing as to how you can be tossed in jail if something is illegal, I'd say it matters a lot.

"I just wanted to make sure we all understood the distinction, because the legality of catcalling is kind of irrelevant to the fact that doing so makes one a dick. With all of the waxing on the Constitution I was under the impression that you all were making a one to one relationship between political opposition and 'Hey, nice ass!'"

No, I actually am. Because all opinion has to be considered meaningful in some way to someone (because it IS, as you previously agreed with "And we call those people...", which clearly states that you acknowledge such a group exists), it suppresses that person's speech to bar them from stating an opinion.
SO: "Just because you don't see the value in said opinion does not give you a right to censor it."
Actually has meaning. It's like you're making a conscious effort to not connect the dots.

"All I want to know is that you understand that 'protected' doesn't mean 'not a dick move'."

I do, as was mentioned previously. Like with this statement: "This has certainly advanced the Turing Test theory."
Oh, wait, you made that! I wonder, do you understand that 'protected' doesn't mean 'not a dick move'? Or is this a Chinese Room situation?

"Do you, really? Because you're still answering this with unrelated references to legality, so I'm not sure you do."

Nope, I get that you can be annoying and still protected by law. Like the modern day KKK, or with neo-nazis, &tc.

There you go- easy to understand blocks of text. Which is much more than you do for me, what with some of those sentences.
Anything else I can get you? Just ask me, and I'll see what I can do.

[Tubbsalot]

What "lower sex drive"? You mean the one imposed on us by the Victorians that we're still trying to get clear of? I stipulate that this "lower sex drive" you speak of is a result of residual conditioning, not any actual physiological lack of drive.

Again: looking at the culture of homosexual relationships, and the disparity in promiscuous/sex-driven behaviour, you might expect that men have a higher sex drive* than women. Knowing that a stereotype has developed of the man simmering away sexually unsatisfied while his wife recoils at the thought of it, you might expect the same thing. Knowing that prostitution is primarily men buying from women, suggesting that the supply of sex from the mens' perspective is limited, you might expect the same thing. And considering the scale of the difference for points 1 and 3, residual conditioning doesn't seem like a compelling explanation.

I'm not saying women can't have as high a sex drive - nor is that inherently valuable or anything - but I don't see any reason to believe they're perfectly equivalent. Roughly equivalent in most cases, perhaps.

*average

[WestRedMaple]

Point out to me the legality of being a dick in the constitution or one of the laws in the United States. Please.

Just because it doesn't specifically says being a dick is illegal doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

Actually, that DOES mean it isn't illegal. Not having a law against it is the defining characteristic of being 'not illegal' (see also: legal)

[Conserative Morality]

So why are we trying to get men to stop catcalling and reinforcing the perception that women are too weak to deal with it, instead of trying to get women to catcall more in response?

Because catcalling is incredibly stupid and juvenile.

[Fortschritte]

Just because it doesn't specifically says being a dick is illegal doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

Actually, that DOES mean it isn't illegal. Not having a law against it is the defining characteristic of being 'not illegal' (see also: legal)

Norstal is referring to the constitution, not laws.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Again: looking at the culture of homosexual relationships, and the disparity in promiscuous/sex-driven behaviour, you might expect that men have a higher sex drive* than women. Knowing that a stereotype has developed of the man simmering away sexually unsatisfied while his wife recoils at the thought of it, you might expect the same thing. Knowing that prostitution is primarily men buying from women, suggesting that the supply of sex from the mens' perspective is limited, you might expect the same thing. And considering the scale of the difference for points 1 and 3, residual conditioning doesn't seem like a compelling explanation.

I'm not saying women can't have as high a sex drive - nor is that inherently valuable or anything - but I don't see any reason to believe they're perfectly equivalent. Roughly equivalent in most cases, perhaps.

*average

We're not saying it's equivalent. We're disputing it's natural.

Men and women is a construct. Testosterone is not instant sex drive-maker, and it actually inhibits sex drive without estrogen in your body. Every person is different, and gendered social immersion is very important and definitely shapes people's psyches to the point these bell curves might actually be indeed shaped by factors other than mere biology.

[Condunum]

Catcalling is bad, but it's not worth the trouble of making it illegal.

See: Recent UK porn laws.

[Cannot think of a name]

"This has certainly advanced the Turing Test theory."

So, uh, you gonna make that part of what you said make sense, or just keep insulting me and act like what you said was actually logical?

Honestly, at this point, I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

" I submit that you do not, given that your response to the question "You realize that doing so makes you a dick regardless of its legality" was "Being a dick isn't illegal."

Because, ah, in case you've still failed to notice, this isn't exactly the height of logic.

And yet, here we are.

"I mean, you can wrap yourself in a flag and hum America the Beautiful afterwards while hand feeding a bald eagle, but you'd still be a dick."
"You said it, I didn't... "

So are you outright lying here and saying I said, "I mean, you can wrap yourself in a flag and hum America the Beautiful afterwards while hand feeding a bald eagle, but you'd still be a dick." first, or that hand feeding eagles is actually totally a normal thing? Perhaps you should hit me up for that class. I can TG you my e-mail, if you want, and give you help from there.

Ugh...you may have gotten a few undeserved gold stars in your reading classes, dude. I don't even know how to unpack this for you and I'm pretty sure it's going to be akin to teaching a pig to sing.

"Again...not so clear with your continued fixation on legality like it fucking matters."

Danke. Actually, seeing as to how you can be tossed in jail if something is illegal, I'd say it matters a lot.

What?

"I just wanted to make sure we all understood the distinction, because the legality of catcalling is kind of irrelevant to the fact that doing so makes one a dick. With all of the waxing on the Constitution I was under the impression that you all were making a one to one relationship between political opposition and 'Hey, nice ass!'"

No, I actually am. Because all opinion has to be considered meaningful in some way to someone (because it IS, as you previously agreed with "And we call those people...", which clearly states that you acknowledge such a group exists), it suppresses that person's speech to bar them from stating an opinion.
SO: "Just because you don't see the value in said opinion does not give you a right to censor it."
Actually has meaning. It's like you're making a conscious effort to not connect the dots.

You're connecting dots that aren't there. "Free speech, motherfucker!" is a non-sequitor response to, "Hey man, that's a dick thing to say."

"All I want to know is that you understand that 'protected' doesn't mean 'not a dick move'."

I do, as was mentioned previously. Like with this statement: "This has certainly advanced the Turing Test theory."
Oh, wait, you made that! I wonder, do you understand that 'protected' doesn't mean 'not a dick move'? Or is this a Chinese Room situation?

...what?

"Do you, really? Because you're still answering this with unrelated references to legality, so I'm not sure you do."

Nope, I get that you can be annoying and still protected by law. Like the modern day KKK, or with neo-nazis, &tc.

I feel like I'm trapped in the worst version of Who's on First ever conceived...

There you go- easy to understand blocks of text. Which is much more than you do for me, what with some of those sentences.
Anything else I can get you? Just ask me, and I'll see what I can do.

Okay.

I don't have any letter blocks, so there's only so simple I can make this. Let's see if you can manage this simple task.

Without bringing up unrelated issues regardless of whether they are true or not, can you understand that shouting and random women in the street about their bodies is a dick move? Just that. That is all I'm asking. Just answer that question and that question alone. Just that one...nothing else about the nature of shouting at women in public, just that one question. I have high hopes for you, champ, I really do. Don't let me down.

[Sonorra]

While we're at it, let's arrest anyone that hurts my feelings.

[Tubbsalot]

We're not saying it's equivalent. We're disputing it's natural.

Men and women is a construct. Testosterone is not instant sex drive-maker, and it actually inhibits sex drive without estrogen in your body. Every person is different, and gendered social immersion is very important and definitely shapes people's psyches to the point these bell curves might actually be indeed shaped by factors other than mere biology.

...yes, absolutely, but what I'm saying is that even when you vary the environment it doesn't result in much of a change in the sexual disparities I've mentioned. Which suggests there's a large component inherent to the sex of a person, i.e. their biology. I agree socialisation is probably a fairly large component as well, but it doesn't seem to be the overwhelming factor.

(And at the risk of sounding transphobic, male/female is more than just a construct; there is definitely a large biological component there, too. But I probably shouldn't drag the argument over there as well.)

While we're at it, let's arrest anyone that hurts my feelings.

Considering the popularity of catcalls among the usual recipients, it's roughly equivalent to angry ranting and insults. Do you have a problem with banning that?

[The Ben Boys]

I see the only rational solution being men calling out other men for being disgusting on the street.

Agreed. I go to a rather small Christian college, and the unspoken rule about the men here is when they go out with female friends that they crack down on cat callers and letchers. It's something I find sorely lacking even in the liberal ivory tower disconnect zone of NorCal, but it's something men should do without being told. It's what's separate the men from the boys.

[WestRedMaple]

I get why you put that there, but I think it has less relevance than you do. We're talking "Guy A walks up to Girl B and makes moronic comment on breast size.".
This is what people are going to do without considerable societal pressure to do otherwise. A law isn't going to stop verbal annoyances, and even pressure on people won't fully stamp out those who dislike for no reason.

No one here is suggesting it will end the practice. If offers an avenue of punishment instead of listening to "it was just a joke, bro!"

And a government punishing someone just for perceiving something as rude would be worse.

The reasonable response is providing social pressure against it

[The Ben Boys]

No one here is suggesting it will end the practice. If offers an avenue of punishment instead of listening to "it was just a joke, bro!"

And a government punishing someone just for perceiving something as rude would be worse.

The reasonable response is providing social pressure against it

Exactly, otherwise you're getting into murky moral and practical territory. The crackdown on social racism is largely just that, social pressure, which should be applied to this.

[WestRedMaple]

Actually, that DOES mean it isn't illegal. Not having a law against it is the defining characteristic of being 'not illegal' (see also: legal)

Norstal is referring to the constitution, not laws.

Go back and read the actual post.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

"And at the risk of sounding transphobic, male/female is more than just a construct; there is definitely a large biological component there, too."

Everybody is a little ambiguous sexual corporeality-wise and the categories are so blurred, so over-generalized and so arbitrary that it's best to not say anything other than what is true for EVERYONE has a biological origin.

Such as, you can say dyadic cis males have spermatozoa. You can't say it's in the inherent nature of dyadic cis males to be further sexualized than females because they're built as such, thus completely ignoring male asexuality, female hypersexuality/promiscuity, how gender roles might harm both sets of dyadic cis people and are an active tool of oppression for the womankind, and the obvious neglect of intersex and trans people as having just as "biologically valid" (whatever that is) genders as everyone else this tone of "nature of sexes" generally carries (because nobody in NSG tries to have inclusive language about that when they're arguing for essentialism).

For more explanation, go for the LGBT issues thread. You aren't the first to argue this.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Catcalling is bad, but it's not worth the trouble of making it illegal.
See: Recent UK porn laws.

Those laws are good. Though they don't go far enough.

[Talonis]

Honestly, at this point, I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

" I submit that you do not, given that your response to the question "You realize that doing so makes you a dick regardless of its legality" was "Being a dick isn't illegal."

"Because, ah, in case you've still failed to notice, this isn't exactly the height of logic."

We're talking about that. Must I baby you through this? Please, tell me in advance how many times that should be repeated.

Ugh...you may have gotten a few undeserved gold stars in your reading classes, dude. I don't even know how to unpack this for you and I'm pretty sure it's going to be akin to teaching a pig to sing.

Let me do it for you, because you're either lazy or daft.

YOUR STATEMENT IS NONSENSE. THUS, YOU CANNOT ARGUE USING IT UNTIL YOU DO THE FOLLOWING:
1) Make the statement coherent. OR
2) Explain what you meant.

Any more clarification needed?

Further:
"You said it, I didn't"? That makes no sense in the way that you used it:

"I mean, you can wrap yourself in a flag and hum America the Beautiful afterwards while hand feeding a bald eagle, but you'd still be a dick."

To which I replied that it would make you strange, but that you would still be a dick.
Where does that phrase make sense here? With "that" meaning "You said it, I didn't"? I rebutted in a manner only the highest order of stupid would fail to recognise as fact- that most people DO NOT ever had feed an eagle while in a flag. So what were you saying?

What?

I didn't mince my words there:

Actually, seeing as to how you can be tossed in jail if something is illegal, I'd say it matters a lot.

That was showing that legality does have bearing on an issue. "Danke" is German for "thank you", as I was pleased you gave me a point.

"All I want to know is that you understand that 'protected' doesn't mean 'not a dick move'."

I do, as was mentioned previously. Like with this statement: "This has certainly advanced the Turing Test theory."
Oh, wait, you made that! I wonder, do you understand that 'protected' doesn't mean 'not a dick move'? Or is this a Chinese Room situation?

...what?

-The Chinese Room-

A girl is trapped inside a room full of Chinese books that list common phrases with their responses. Chinese men wait outside, and the groups can only communicate with writing. The girl matches their text with the responses in the book, and these make sense.
"Are you hungry?"
"Yes, I would like the pork please."

"Was the pork to your liking?"
"No, it was dry."

The Chinese men might think the girl knows what she's talking about, but she does not.

It's used to refer to an AI that isn't actually comprehending its response, but matching input to a list of string data, so that it seems to be a real, thinking AI, but it isn't conscious, or even processing its input critically.

I was saying that you don't seem to comprehend my response, rather, you just tend to look at a part and spew out a reply.

You're connecting dots that aren't there. "Free speech, motherfucker!" is a non-sequitor response to, "Hey man, that's a dick thing to say."

Did you only read that last line? See this is what I mean by Chinese room. Oh, and "sequitor" isn't a word. Now, sequitur is, and it means "the conclusion to an interference" (source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sequitur).
So I'll answer this like I think you have a clue.
I wasn't calling "Hey man, that's a dick thing to say." an interference. I was stating that due to the nature of an opinion, it's a bad idea to just barge in and say "THOUGHT POLICE HERE, STOP EXPRESSING YOURSELF." And that due to the fact that each opinion is viewed differently by everyone, calling one simply "bad" is incorrect. As to the relevance, which you will certainly question based on past responses, I'm saying things about the legal side of the argument.

Now, here's where you'll say, "Hex, why does that matter?" to which my reply is:
People were discussing that, so it has relevance in the conversation as a component of said conversation.

I feel like I'm trapped in the worst version of Who's on First ever conceived...

Imma make my point REALLY OBVIOUS, because I'm not trying to me mean here.

I think social action should be taken over legal action, due mainly to the restriction on legal action in this case. I also find that legal action would require quantifying opinion, which would be a waste of resources due to the nature of opinion. I do not think it is a good idea to "catcall", but I acknowledge that this is a behavior that will occur regardless of actions taken.

Without bringing up unrelated issues regardless of whether they are true or not, can you understand that shouting and random women in the street about their bodies is a dick move? Just that. That is all I'm asking. Just answer that question and that question alone. Just that one...nothing else about the nature of shouting at women in public, just that one question. I have high hopes for you, champ, I really do. Don't let me down.

I'm not bringing up unrelated issues. You were just calling what I said unrelated so you didn't have to argue with it.

Yes. That's called an answer. I'm acting like you're stupid because...

On this it is not clear. I submit that you do not, given that your repsonse to the question "You realize that doing so makes you a dick regardless of its legality" was "Being a dick isn't illegal." This demonstrates a fundamental inability to separate the two concepts and a misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Or, that a Turing Test is being failed and we've stumbled into some kind of feedback loop where the tested AI can only respond in one way to a subject regardless of the content. It is unclear at this point which one it is.

... Is total nonsense that you've yet to explain. So stop critiquing me untless you can actually explain what in hell you want in the first place.

[Fartsniffage]

Honestly, at this point, I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

" I submit that you do not, given that your response to the question "You realize that doing so makes you a dick regardless of its legality" was "Being a dick isn't illegal."

"Because, ah, in case you've still failed to notice, this isn't exactly the height of logic."

We're talking about that. Must I baby you through this? Please, tell me in advance how many times that should be repeated.

Ugh...you may have gotten a few undeserved gold stars in your reading classes, dude. I don't even know how to unpack this for you and I'm pretty sure it's going to be akin to teaching a pig to sing.

Let me do it for you, because you're either lazy or daft.

YOUR STATEMENT IS NONSENSE. THUS, YOU CANNOT ARGUE USING IT UNTIL YOU DO THE FOLLOWING:
1) Make the statement coherent. OR
2) Explain what you meant.

Any more clarification needed?

Further:
"You said it, I didn't"? That makes no sense in the way that you used it:

"I mean, you can wrap yourself in a flag and hum America the Beautiful afterwards while hand feeding a bald eagle, but you'd still be a dick."

To which I replied that it would make you strange, but that you would still be a dick.
Where does that phrase make sense here? With "that" meaning "You said it, I didn't"? I rebutted in a manner only the highest order of stupid would fail to recognise as fact- that most people DO NOT ever had feed an eagle while in a flag. So what were you saying?

What?

I didn't mince my words there:

Actually, seeing as to how you can be tossed in jail if something is illegal, I'd say it matters a lot.

That was showing that legality does have bearing on an issue. "Danke" is German for "thank you", as I was pleased you gave me a point.

I do, as was mentioned previously. Like with this statement: "This has certainly advanced the Turing Test theory."
Oh, wait, you made that! I wonder, do you understand that 'protected' doesn't mean 'not a dick move'? Or is this a Chinese Room situation?

...what?

-The Chinese Room-

A girl is trapped inside a room full of Chinese books that list common phrases with their responses. Chinese men wait outside, and the groups can only communicate with writing. The girl matches their text with the responses in the book, and these make sense.
"Are you hungry?"
"Yes, I would like the pork please."

"Was the pork to your liking?"
"No, it was dry."

The Chinese men might think the girl knows what she's talking about, but she does not.

It's used to refer to an AI that isn't actually comprehending its response, but matching input to a list of string data, so that it seems to be a real, thinking AI, but it isn't conscious, or even processing its input critically.

I was saying that you don't seem to comprehend my response, rather, you just tend to look at a part and spew out a reply.

You're connecting dots that aren't there. "Free speech, motherfucker!" is a non-sequitor response to, "Hey man, that's a dick thing to say."

Did you only read that last line? See this is what I mean by Chinese room. Oh, and "sequitor" isn't a word. Now, sequitur is, and it means "the conclusion to an interference" (source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sequitur).
So I'll answer this like I think you have a clue.
I wasn't calling "Hey man, that's a dick thing to say." an interference. I was stating that due to the nature of an opinion, it's a bad idea to just barge in and say "THOUGHT POLICE HERE, STOP EXPRESSING YOURSELF." And that due to the fact that each opinion is viewed differently by everyone, calling one simply "bad" is incorrect. As to the relevance, which you will certainly question based on past responses, I'm saying things about the legal side of the argument.

Now, here's where you'll say, "Hex, why does that matter?" to which my reply is:
People were discussing that, so it has relevance in the conversation as a component of said conversation.

I feel like I'm trapped in the worst version of Who's on First ever conceived...

Imma make my point REALLY OBVIOUS, because I'm not trying to me mean here.

I think social action should be taken over legal action, due mainly to the restriction on legal action in this case. I also find that legal action would require quantifying opinion, which would be a waste of resources due to the nature of opinion. I do not think it is a good idea to "catcall", but I acknowledge that this is a behavior that will occur regardless of actions taken.

Without bringing up unrelated issues regardless of whether they are true or not, can you understand that shouting and random women in the street about their bodies is a dick move? Just that. That is all I'm asking. Just answer that question and that question alone. Just that one...nothing else about the nature of shouting at women in public, just that one question. I have high hopes for you, champ, I really do. Don't let me down.

I'm not bringing up unrelated issues. You were just calling what I said unrelated so you didn't have to argue with it.

Yes. That's called an answer. I'm acting like you're stupid because...

On this it is not clear. I submit that you do not, given that your repsonse to the question "You realize that doing so makes you a dick regardless of its legality" was "Being a dick isn't illegal." This demonstrates a fundamental inability to separate the two concepts and a misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Or, that a Turing Test is being failed and we've stumbled into some kind of feedback loop where the tested AI can only respond in one way to a subject regardless of the content. It is unclear at this point which one it is.

... Is total nonsense that you've yet to explain. So stop critiquing me untless you can actually explain what in hell you want in the first place.

Is shouting at random women in the street a dick move? Yes or no?

[MERIZoC]

Catcalling is bad, but it's not worth the trouble of making it illegal.
See: Recent UK porn laws.

Those laws are good. Though they don't go far enough.

No, they aren't.

[Talonis]

Is shouting at random women in the street a dick move? Yes or no?

Yes.

I do not think it is a good idea to "catcall",

How about we try reading before questioning the material?
Seems like a good idea to me.