(War on Women) NYC: 10 hours of Harassment or Compliments?

[presence]

The worst part of that video is the dude that followed her for 5 minutes. There are worse stories to be told as described by others in this thread.

Bull$#@!. Did she say, "quit $#@!ing following me $#@!" "is there a reason you're followin me?" "you're kinda being creepy dude, could you knock that $#@! off?" Did she try to get away? Did she ask him if he needed anything? ...or did she quietly consent, and embolden him, by queitly walking along with him just to prove a point.

SHE WANTED HIM TO KEEP WALKING NEXT TO HER SO SHE COULD SAY

>>> "LOOK THIS GUY FOLLOWED ME FOR 5 WHOLE MINUTES"



He felt that... he didn't know why she didn't do anything to fend him off... but he felt welcome.



If Magdalene doesn't want cat callers
she needs to put down the orange blossom,
give up the vanity mirror
and listen to Martha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_...8Caravaggio%29



Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio - Martha and Mary Magdalene 1589

The Conversion of the Magdalene - Bernardino Luini, 1520

Else we need some kommiefornia "affirmative consent" form to walk next to one another on the street.

[PaulConventionWV]

Most of it is the result of bad parenting... not much that can be done about that

Very true. A lot of it (most of it) goes back to things we have no control over. Moreover, why is it so urgent to stop?

It's a very simple cost-benefit analysis. First of all, how bad do we want this? How important is it that we stop cat-calling? Well, considering that other, much more serious crimes actually do hurt women, I would say it's not very important. Secondly, how much work do we have to do to stop it? A LOT. The people that do this are not in our immediate circle, so it would take a dramatic and concentrated effort to actually have an effect, and even that is unlikely to completely eliminate it. You can go organize meet-ups and spend money and time trying to solve a problem that isn't that big to begin with, but I'm going to be a realist and say people just need to get over it and stop treating it like such a big deal. It's people talking on the street, for crying out loud.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Bull$#@!. Did she say, "quit $#@!ing following me $#@!" "is there a reason you're followin me?" "you're kinda being creepy dude, could you knock that $#@! off?" Did she try to get away? Did she ask him if he needed anything? ...or did she quietly consent by walking along with him just to prove a point.

SHE WANTED HIM TO KEEP WALKING NEXT TO HER SO SHE COULD SAY

>>> "LOOK THIS GUY FOLLOWED ME FOR 5 WHOLE MINUTES"

He felt that... he didn't know why she didn't do anything to fend him off... but he felt welcome.


Do we need some kommiefornia "affirmative consent" form to walk next to one another now on the street?

Never thought I'd see the day when a libertarian invoked the doctrine of tacit or implied consent. Well, actually it isn't too much of a surprise considering how hypocritical libertarians can be on these issues.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes. I've seen it work many times.

I'm not sure what universe you're living in, but whatever you saw, I assure you that there are still plenty of thugs. Always have been, always will be. If you're looking for perfection, it's just not going to happen.

I'm for this as well. Just remember that sometimes women are doing this simply to get the guy to leave her alone. IE, fake number. Nicole, who I mentioned earlier, has one memorized that sounds real, for example.

Yes, I'm aware that that happens, but shockingly enough, there are women who genuinely respond to it and are flattered by it. I've seen it.

Wanting people not to act like $#@!s is not oppression. Where do you get that idea from?

I wasn't implying that. The idea of this video is pretending that there's this large-scale oppression on women perpetrated by men. They're trying to evoke an emotional response to their "situation" because women are sooooo oppressed. That's what Oppression Olympics means.

[kahless]

Bull$#@!. Did she say, "quit $#@!ing following me $#@!" "is there a reason you're followin me?" "you're kinda being creepy dude, could you knock that $#@! off?" Did she try to get away? Did she ask him if he needed anything? ...or did she quietly consent, and embolden him, by queitly walking along with him just to prove a point.

SHE WANTED HIM TO KEEP WALKING NEXT TO HER SO SHE COULD SAY

>>> "LOOK THIS GUY FOLLOWED ME FOR 5 WHOLE MINUTES"



He felt that... he didn't know why she didn't do anything to fend him off... but he felt welcome.

The video is an example to make a point. There are plenty of examples where a woman has done what you described and they block her way or get overly aggressive. No harm in a campaign for civility and decorum.

Does not say allot about the men in today's culture that have no issue with scaring the crap out of women with this kind of behavior.

[TheTexan]

Just make it illegal? It's the simplest and most obvious solution. Its not that hard!

Education isn't gonna work, and you dont want to pack up your $#@! to go somewhere this doesnt happen as much, and you sure as $#@! dont want to quit bitching and just deal with it, ... only the simplest and easiest solution remains.

You guys are really overthinking this.

[jonhowe]

There have always been and always will be people that don't care. That's why we still have criminals today. Don't you think your time would be better spent trying to eliminate murder and rape through community influence? When are you going to realize that people who do trashy things do those things because they just don't care about your influence and they're not part of your community? Why do you think the negative view toward crime in general hasn't stopped it yet? Why do you think the fact that society looks down on drug use hasn't eliminated drugs? It's because certain people just don't care.

Agreed. Certain people don't care. There are always going to be criminals (and I mean that in the moral sense of the term). Those criminals will likely continue to catcall. But if we can get all the people who do this who simply havent thought about it, or who think their friends think it's cool, or who think that women LIKE it, to see how bad it can be, and to understand it's not acceptable behavior, we can get a lot done. I'm not looking to eliminate cat calling (again, you are implying some mission or vendetta or proposed legislation into my posts when there is none) just like I'm not looking to eliminate people who support, say, the federal reserve. We both know there will always be idiots around.

What's more, this is not a "big deal" to anyone. Assault is a big deal. Stalking is a big deal. This is NOT a big deal. And despite the fact that those may not have been bad neighborhoods, notice the people who were doing it weren't particularly well-kept in a general sense. These are the types of people who aren't going to care if you tell your friends (who probably don't do it anyway) that this should stop.

It is not a big deal to YOU. Please get that straight. It is a big deal to me, and to many of the people I live with, near, and around. Clearly this never happens in WV and nothing needs to be done about it there; good. You can now stop posting in this thread and stop all murder. Oh wait, that's impossible to do too, so I guess murder is fine!

This isn't hurting anyone.

It is. It isn't hurting you; you've made that clear. You still seem to see a distinction between "yourself" and "anyone else".

What happened to the old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?

First of all, what do you think the guy who followed her for 5 minutes was thinking?

Words might never hurt you. But you've never had a person who literally weighs 2-3x what you do tell you they want to rape you in an alley and then follow you home. My friend may have made it home without injury, but if you think that kind of behavior is acceptable (not by law, but by society) you just don't get it.

Let me define social engineering in the context of how I'm using it. When I say social engineering, I mean going on a massive witch-hunt and trying to stop people from being the way they are when you could just as easily achieve the same result by not caring about them. Unless some guy attacks a woman, I'm not concerned that he shouted a compliment at her. Social engineering is the idea that, for some reason, we need to change that. We really don't. Sure, if one of my friends did that, I would tell them it's not cool, but none of my friends do that, so I'm not going to waste precious time and resources on trying to stop it. Surely you must see how little chance there is that any one of us is going to have an impact on this behavior.

It's not a problem in your community so you don't see a need to change it. This has been made clear. You are "not concerned", so I'm not sure why you're in this thread?

That's just the thing, though: decent men already know this. The people who do it are not decent. So trying to foster this awareness among decent individuals is not going to achieve anything. I put the question last because it was rhetorical.

Decent men know this is wrong because they have empathy and understanding of how it must feel. This video is for those men who have never thought about it from a woman's point of view; it's something many people have trouble doing on their own. The fact that you are calling these 'compliments' shows that you do NOT understand the issue and perfectly illustrates my point.

That's great. But it's also a lot different. Decent people walk their dogs. Decent people heed the advice of other decent people. Decent people also see the benefit to them if they stop this behavior. The signs were just an acknowledgement of what they already knew to be true: that they don't like poop-covered sidewalks. Idiots who catcall already know that people like you think it's not cool, but they do it anyway. Big shocker!

Again, you're assuming the callers have all thought this through extensively before they act. You're giving most people too much credit. Most men just aren't paying attention to this issue, so it ISN'T an issue to them. Videos like this show how uncomfortable and scary these guys can get from a woman's point of view; something many men simply lack.

[PaulConventionWV]

Bull$#@!. Did she say, "quit $#@!ing following me $#@!" "is there a reason you're followin me?" "you're kinda being creepy dude, could you knock that $#@! off?" Did she try to get away? Did she ask him if he needed anything? ...or did she quietly consent, and embolden him, by queitly walking along with him just to prove a point.

SHE WANTED HIM TO KEEP WALKING NEXT TO HER SO SHE COULD SAY

>>> "LOOK THIS GUY FOLLOWED ME FOR 5 WHOLE MINUTES"



He felt that... he didn't know why she didn't do anything to fend him off... but he felt welcome.



If Magdalene doesn't want cat callers
she needs to put down the orange blossom,
give up the vanity mirror
and listen to Martha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_...8Caravaggio%29



Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio - Martha and Mary Magdalene 1589

The Conversion of the Magdalene - Bernardino Luini, 1520

Else we need some kommiefornia "affirmative consent" form to walk next to one another on the street.

This. It's not stalking unless you let the person know that you're not comfortable. After that, it's stalking. If he were trying to be aggressive, he wouldn't have been so open about it. He was literally right next to her... not behind her, not acting inconspicuous or secretive. Just walking with her in plain view, probably just to be seen with her.

[PaulConventionWV]

Never thought I'd see the day when a libertarian invoked the doctrine of tacit or implied consent. Well, actually it isn't too much of a surprise considering how hypocritical libertarians can be on these issues.

Never thought I'd see the day when a libertarian implied that a man needs consent to walk down the street...

[jonhowe]

Bull$#@!. Did she say, "quit $#@!ing following me $#@!" "is there a reason you're followin me?" "you're kinda being creepy dude, could you knock that $#@! off?" Did she try to get away? Did she ask him if he needed anything? ...or did she quietly consent, and embolden him, by queitly walking along with him just to prove a point.

SHE WANTED HIM TO KEEP WALKING NEXT TO HER SO SHE COULD SAY

>>> "LOOK THIS GUY FOLLOWED ME FOR 5 WHOLE MINUTES"



He felt that... he didn't know why she didn't do anything to fend him off... but he felt welcome.

Disgusting post.


Come to NYC, see how often this happens. IT IS NEVER WANTED.





This place gets crazier and crazier every time something about women is posted, I swear. THIS IS WHY THE MOVEMENT IS A VAST MAJORITY MALE!

[kahless]

Ever been to the Ozarks?

The likelihood of such behavior transpiring here is pretty slim..

I know that I personally have no problem at all risking a prison sentence to stand up for my family in such a way that others will question such behavior in the future even if I'm gone....

Funny, I spent allot of time researching different areas of the Ozarks as a consideration to relocate to for homesteading.

I think the Progressive news media and entertainment culture (hip-hop ghetto culture, women degraded and objectified as bitches and hoes) has contributed as some form of social engineering that contributed to the problems with the under 30 demographic groups I described including reverse racism.

[PaulConventionWV]

The video is an example to make a point. There are plenty of examples where a woman has done what you described and they block her way or get overly aggressive. No harm in a campaign for civility and decorum.

Does not say allot about the men in today's culture that have no issue with scaring the crap out of women with this kind of behavior.

Ok, but let's differentiate between aggression and cat-calling. They are not the same thing. If people block you or get aggressive, then it's threatening and dangerous and if they touch you, it's assault, but not until them. It's really important to differentiate between the two and not make the issue convoluted by acting as if talking and walking down the street is just a pre-cursor to assault.

[kahless]

Ok, but let's differentiate between aggression and cat-calling. They are not the same thing. If people block you or get aggressive, then it's threatening and dangerous and if they touch you, it's assault, but not until them. It's really important to differentiate between the two and not make the issue convoluted by acting as if talking and walking down the street is just a pre-cursor to assault.

Like I said earlier much of the video is tame. They could have done better.

[thoughtomator]

Never thought I'd see the day when a libertarian invoked the doctrine of tacit or implied consent. Well, actually it isn't too much of a surprise considering how hypocritical libertarians can be on these issues.

I wouldn't argue implied consent, but I would argue that what the video shows is never how it would go down in the real world. As I described above, when in a city you should be situationally aware and take evasive action if you perceive a potential threat. This is pretty instinctual stuff, so in order to produce that example she had to behave in a way that wouldn't actually happen in a real-world scenario. She had several options for dealing with a bothersome person and chose to take none of them.

In a real-world scenario that encounter ends in 15-30 seconds as she either slows down, speeds up, changes her path, walks into a store, tells him to pike off, or some combination of the above. It only lasted 5 minutes because she chose to bait a socially inept ghetto kid by her premeditated and completely abnormal reaction (showing no signs of rejection nor acceptance of his overture).

So, yes, if a person wants to walk around in a personal bubble and not interact with the people around her, the heart of the most densely populated city in North America might be uncomfortable.

When I felt that way about the city, I chose to leave for a place where the nature of the environment wouldn't force me to interact with kinds of people I didn't want to interact with (low class ones who exhibit no sign of civility). The simplest solution to her problem, and the only realistic one, is for her to move out. All of the implied alternate solutions are monstrous and tyrannical.

The video stands as the product of people who hate men and purposely baited the behavior they hated most so as to generate artificial offense and claim victimhood status, a platform from which they surely intend to make other, unreasonable demands. If you want a clue as to what those demands might be, look up the "Hollaback!" group, its leader, and the other associations that leader might have. Took me all of 2 minutes to find the source of over-the-top Leftist activism (a "youth health" group whose Twitter feed is exclusively socialist propaganda).

If there's an overarching message that I'm trying to give in dissecting this, it's excepting only the rarest of cases, any media produced for mass consumption is designed first and foremost to influence the opinions of the audience, and that to properly understand it one must understand the underlying motivation in its creation. In rare cases these will genuinely be positive motivations, but for the most part they are self-interested ones, and uninterested in the well-being of the target audience.

[TheTexan]

You know what I really hate? Is women bugging me all the time for computer help just because they know I work in IT.

Make them stop. I should make a video.

[PaulConventionWV]

Agreed. Certain people don't care. There are always going to be criminals (and I mean that in the moral sense of the term). Those criminals will likely continue to catcall. But if we can get all the people who do this who simply havent thought about it, or who think their friends think it's cool, or who think that women LIKE it, to see how bad it can be, and to understand it's not acceptable behavior, we can get a lot done. I'm not looking to eliminate cat calling (again, you are implying some mission or vendetta or proposed legislation into my posts when there is none) just like I'm not looking to eliminate people who support, say, the federal reserve. We both know there will always be idiots around.

I really wasn't implying such a thing. Sorry if I was, but it seems to me that you think more action is needed. Society already generally looks down on cat-calling and decent people will discourage their friends from partaking in that activity. What do you think should be done? Advertising? Meet-ups? Confronting people on the street? What should we do that most people don't already do? If you want to do all those things and spend your money on a bunch of advertising for it, then go ahead. I don't see the point because, it's just not that big of a deal. It's a cost-benefit analysis just like anything else, and people who are passionate about it should realize that it's not everyone else's duty to join them. They can reach out and encourage change all they want, but calling out and shaming "society" for the behavior of a few thugs is pointless.

It is not a big deal to YOU. Please get that straight. It is a big deal to me, and to many of the people I live with, near, and around. Clearly this never happens in WV and nothing needs to be done about it there; good. You can now stop posting in this thread and stop all murder. Oh wait, that's impossible to do too, so I guess murder is fine!

No, I never implied that, but why don't you pay more attention to that last sentence there? It's impossible to do, really? So, if it's so impossible to stop murder, which is a MUCH more serious issue, then how do you expect to stop cat-calling, which is not an aggressive behavior in the first place?

It is. It isn't hurting you; you've made that clear. You still seem to see a distinction between "yourself" and "anyone else".

When I say "not hurting anyone", I mean that literally. What harm does this do to the person's body? If you want to say that it hurts them on an emotional level, well then you're just getting into the metaphysical and psychological aspects of it. In that case, I will always maintain that people can control their reactions better than they can control the behaviors of other people. Words only hurt you if you let them.

First of all, what do you think the guy who followed her for 5 minutes was thinking?

Probably wondering how long he could keep walking there without her saying anything.

Words might never hurt you. But you've never had a person who literally weighs 2-3x what you do tell you they want to rape you in an alley and then follow you home. My friend may have made it home without injury, but if you think that kind of behavior is acceptable (not by law, but by society) you just don't get it.

Cat-calling is not threats. Let's make the distinction between clearly aggressive behavior and regular cat-calling. Most of it is not aggressive. If the woman would have said something to the guy who was following her and he kept doing it, then it would have been aggressive. Not until then, though.

It's not a problem in your community so you don't see a need to change it. This has been made clear. You are "not concerned", so I'm not sure why you're in this thread?

Because the whole point of this video is to get me to do something about it, to make me feel like I'm responsible for allowing this to happen. When they made that video, the obvious implication was that all men are responsible for this type of behavior and that women are oppressed by it. I reject that responsibility. This is not my fault and I have no obligation to stop it, nor does anyone else. There are FAR bigger problems in the world than this.

Decent men know this is wrong because they have empathy and understanding of how it must feel. This video is for those men who have never thought about it from a woman's point of view; it's something many people have trouble doing on their own. The fact that you are calling these 'compliments' shows that you do NOT understand the issue and perfectly illustrates my point.

Many of them were compliments, but they were still lumped in as "harassment." It's an obvious propaganda piece that leaves out certain things in order to force the point.

Again, you're assuming the callers have all thought this through extensively before they act. You're giving most people too much credit. Most men just aren't paying attention to this issue, so it ISN'T an issue to them. Videos like this show how uncomfortable and scary these guys can get from a woman's point of view; something many men simply lack.

I'm not so sure about that. What makes you think cat-callers aren't aware of this? Next you're going to tell me that druggies just aren't aware that society disapproves of their behavior.

Also, this behavior may look scary in the video, but that's because the woman did nothing to prevent it. Any normal woman who felt uncomfortable would have said something, but she purposefully didn't. What does that say? She wanted to show something that wouldn't have normally happened under normal circumstances.

[PaulConventionWV]

Like I said earlier much of the video is tame. They could have done better.

And by "done better", you mean, "shown more violence/creepy behavior."

Well... they walked around for 10 hours and this is what they got. It's tame because the reality is tame, but they're trying to act like it's not.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Never thought I'd see the day when a libertarian implied that a man needs consent to walk down the street...

You really need to be more careful when reading. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of justifying his viewpoint using the same rhetoric statists like to use when discussing consent in the context of the state. It does not logically follow that I support the opposite extreme. The only situation where that would be of any interest is in a world where all roads are privately owned, whether by a single person or a group.

[PaulConventionWV]

You really need to be more careful when reading. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of justifying his viewpoint using the same rhetoric statists like to use when discussing consent in the context of the state. It does not logically follow that I support the opposite extreme. The only situation where that would be of any interest is in a world where all roads are privately owned, whether by a single person or a group.

No, but that's implying that there was something wrong with what the man did that he needed consent for. Consent doesn't even enter into the equation because he didn't need consent.

So... why mention implied consent when no consent is needed, implied or expressed?

[jonhowe]

Probably wondering how long he could keep walking there without her saying anything.

You are choosing to be ignorant when you say things like this. It makes giving a serious reply impossible.

Carry on.

[pessimist]

An Alpha male isn't the same thing as a meathead, chest-thumping jock.

Well, then we have a different perception. I have the image of the ripped dudes in tribal tattoos who walk around in "I do alpha male $#@!" t-shirts, or the frat boy douche smashing beer bottles over his head, or Brock Lesnar.

I've always thought an 'alpha' was a man trying to exert his dominance over weaker men as part of some mating ritual.

A man of good looks, confidence, and high status is going to get a more favorable reaction from women than Joe Average

duh! Any man with high status is going to get a more favorable reaction from women than the average Joe. Any good looking guy is going to get a more favorable reaction on first glance. What is your point?

or the nicest, funniest, smartest, man alive if he acts weak in front of the woman (of course, even Betas get women, but they have to date down).

This is absurd. You are are VASTLY underestimating the power of personality. I am not sure what you mean by "acting weak" but many of these smart, funny dudes have sociopathic wit and charm, who know how to 'turn women on'. I have no idea what you're talking about here.

An ugly, glib, car salesman type well versed in the art of persuasion can get laid pretty much any time he wants to by manipulating and conning dumb women. Is he alpha?

Don't listen to what women say; watch what they do. But again, the Alpha isn't supposed to be what you envision it to be.

Yeah, I must have a different view of the "alpha male", but GOOD LOOKS has nothing to do with alpha or beta. There are a $#@! load of pretty boys who don't "do alpha male $#@!" or are even particularly masculine, but they can get laid any time they want because they're "hot".

Wow! Women like hot guys, like men like hot women? Who would have thought?

[chudrockz]

The video is an example to make a point. There are plenty of examples where a woman has done what you described and they block her way or get overly aggressive. No harm in a campaign for civility and decorum.

Does not say allot about the men in today's culture that have no issue with scaring the crap out of women with this kind of behavior.

When I was in college and partying frequently, I'd be walking around campus or small town and often there would be a woman walking near me. Since I'm large and (to some, I guess) kind of angry/ scary looking (!), I almost always attempted to converse at least briefly, with something like "hi, how are you tonight? I know I'm a giant, and if I make you nervous I would be happy to walk fifty feet in front of you, or stand still and let you be on your way." I had no desire to scare anyone. Several times at parties though I DID scare guys who I thought were acting badly toward women.

[jonhowe]

No, but that's implying that there was something wrong with what the man did that he needed consent for. Consent doesn't even enter into the equation because he didn't need consent.

So... why mention implied consent when no consent is needed, implied or expressed?

Again, you're being dense if you think they guy was 'just walking down the street'.

[TheTexan]

You know what I really hate? Is women bugging me all the time for computer help just because they know I work in IT.

Make them stop. I should make a video.

They actually do get kind of aggressive with their begging sometimes. A couple times they've even broke down in tears. Made me really uncomfortable.

[chudrockz]

And that just totally reminded me of a metal concert I was at once. There was a really cute young girl crowd surfing near me who was also topless. No one really seemed to object. I know I didn't. But there was one guy who was nearby who REPEATEDLY kept reaching up and totally overtly groping her boobs. She was obviously annoyed by it and kept batting his hands down. After about the third or fourth time he did it, I pushed my way over to him and said something very much like "Hey dude, if you don't stop grabbing at her she is going to put her shirt on. If you make her mad enough to put her shirt back on, I'm GOING to stomp your $#@!ing face." He left.

[PaulConventionWV]

Again, you're being dense if you think they guy was 'just walking down the street'.

Was he doing something else that I didn't see?

Again, if she wanted him to stop, she should have said something like any normal woman would. He was probably curious as to why she wasn't saying anything.

[Rothbardian Girl]

No, but that's implying that there was something wrong with what the man did that he needed consent for. Consent doesn't even enter into the equation because he didn't need consent.

So... why mention implied consent when no consent is needed, implied or expressed?

presence was the one who brought it up when he implied that because the woman didn't tell the man to knock it off, she was consenting to the behavior (she "wanted" him to keep doing it, using presence's word choice). This is just like when people argue that democracy is legitimate because people implicitly consent to be bound by it when they are born, or the good old "social contract" argument. Basically, lack of response does not imply consent in these contexts.

[TheTexan]

Again, you're being dense if you think they guy was 'just walking down the street'.

The guy was probably just playing a game with her because she was clearly and obviously playing a game with them.

[presence]

The woman holds up a set of scales, presuming to weigh up life, as if existence is at her dictation. In the scales, life is measured quantitatively rather than qualitatively, a false reckoning over innate recognition of its value. The woman stands "above" the skull, apparently taking precedence over, and neglecting, the individual's former agency. Amid her sumptuous garb, she reduces the skull purely to an inanimate object, rather than a relic that once housed a unique seat of reason and emotion, conscience and insight. Equally, though, for all the woman's treatment of the skull as a mere footnote to her beauty, she also portrays it in the most conspicuous and negative light. She reflects it in the mirror, showing us the skull from different angles. The woman advertises the fact of death, and does so with a purse-lipped, almost arrogant sincerity. She presents the skull as if indicting death, as though mortality were a vice to see embarrassed, even shamed.


The positioning of the skull atop the folio reduces what was once the place of that faculty which enabled perception and registered experience to links purely with theory and hypothesis. The textual may feed the imagination and offer salient instruction, but, here, the woman, in her colour-rich attire, takes centre stage while that other "subject" is aligned to the scholarly but not the pragmatic, the inspirational but not the aesthetic. Vanity cajoles us into exclusively visual considerations, motioning the eye to her appearance rather than the curious pathos of that Other "character".

http://wwwsamcaneblogspotcom.blogspo...ases-from.html

[PaulConventionWV]

You are choosing to be ignorant when you say things like this. It makes giving a serious reply impossible.

Carry on.

Oh, right. I forgot that I was always supposed to assume the worst.

Carry on.