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

[acptulsa]

Look, I'm just as much of a fan of economic analysis as anyone you'll ever meet, but there are several situations that cannot adequately be analyzed through the lens of simple supply and demand. Sex is one of those things. Essentially casting women as the supply curve and men as the demand curve is ...

...absolutely NOT what the man did. Read it again, and figure out where you twisted it.

That is criminal. They should be prosecuted.

Amazing, isn't it, how many people thing passing a host of new laws for enforcement to enforce will help us enforce the laws we already have?

[jonhowe]

Exactly, don't go to places where people behave this way.

I like my (Manhattan based) job, and I'd rather put up with the neighbors (and the reggaeton at 2am) than leave the city!
That doesn't mean I need to condone and just accept the threatening and aggressive behavior of a minority of my neighbors.

If I could afford to live in the Village or Park Slope I would.

Vote harder and ban it.

Putting words in the mouths of everyone on the other side of the issue doesn't help.

I certainly am not suggesting legislation of any kind. Men, all over, simply need to stop tolerating this kind of behavior in each other. Call it out; name and shame the $#@!s who do this kind of thing.

By discussing the phenomenon (which, clearly many here still fail grasp the severity of) we can bring it to the attention of those who may not regularly think about it and get them to call it out when they see it, too.

[jonhowe]

In the OP, most of the behavior displayed was friendly or just uncouth.

Nothing in the OP was in any way friendly. What planet are you on??

[Brian4Liberty]

Men are, statistically, many more times likely to be the victim of a violent crime than women are.

Just sayin...

How long are you going to dance around the fact that 100% of the genuinely objectionable behavior in the video comes from an extremely specific demographic?

True story that combines those two ideas. A guy was walking down the street in San Francisco (Marxist heaven) with his wife and kid in a stroller. A guy (bum) was walking past, and pulled out a knife and cut him in the arm as they walked past. Just a little blood, not enough to require stitches. (Infections?!) He finally got the attention of some Police, and the guy hadn't gotten too far, so the Police stopped him. The Police pretty much said to the victim "you look okay, you'll have to file charges and go to court if you want to pursue this". He says yes. Some weeks, if not months later, he got a call from the courts (DA?), and asked him again if he really wanted to file charges. Pretty sure he had to go to the court, and identify the guy in court. The court had wanted to drop it, and interestingly, the initial Police report listed the race of the assaulter as "white", when in reality he was black. Either the Police made a mistake in their report, or they wanted to skew stats, or they wanted the case to get thrown out.

[Acala]

Never listen to what women say; always watch what women do. A lot of behaviors that women say turn them off are often behaviors that attract them. This is where the Bad Boy/Nice Guy dynamic comes into play. A woman may say that she wants a stable, honest, intelligent, humorous, kind man, but ultimately such a man can only fill a boring provider role ("Beta Bucks"). Meanwhile, the man that can command a woman and play with her emotions will give her the tingles ("Alpha $#@!s").

I don't think you have it quite right. Women are attracted to men who are confident. Unfortunately, being an $#@! can look like confidence. But a man doesn't have to be an $#@! to be perceived as confident. In fact, he can be all of the things you list as "beta" but still be confident and attractive. It is the confidence that is key. Sadly, men who have every reason to be confident because of the characteristics you list as "beta", often have the idea that they should also be docile and compliant. THAT'S where the sexual attraction starts to drain away.

[dannno]

Essentially casting women as the supply curve and men as the demand curve is extremely reductive because it treats women as objects and ignores the myriad individual variations in sexual or relationship preferences. A more apt analogy is to consider men and women as independent agents rather than as a simple producer-consumer relationship.

I disagree about the independent agent vs. supply thing and demand and here is why.. Society tends to think that attractive people have these 'high standards' because, well, that's just the way they are. They think a hot female should not be attracted to an unattractive male because some how their attractiveness is inscribed in their DNA and their DNA is attracted to attractive people. That is total bull$#@!. Attractive people say they aren't attracted to unnattractive people because they don't NEED to be. If they weren't successful with attractive people all of a sudden, let's say they gained weight or have a horrible personality or get into some sort of accident, you will likely find them lowering their standards.

A person's standards is a function of their attractiveness and a) sexual drive or b) relationship drive

A woman who has a low sex drive and medium relationship drive and is moderately attractive will have higher standards than a woman who has a low sex drive and high relationship drive who is equally attractive. A man who has a high sex drive and a low relationship drive is moderately attractive will have lower standards than a man who has a low sex drive, low relationship drive and is equally attractive.

This is why Phil's theory works so well, women do in fact '$#@! 'up'' and men do in fact '$#@! 'down'' due to these supply and demand differences, not because these 'independent agents' have these inherited 'standards' that are ingrained in their biology and seem to relatively match their own attractiveness level.

You are right about women defecting and 'settling down', that happens often....but before that happens they are having sex above their grade with a few guys who are having a lot of sex while less attractive guys who may actually want to date them may be sitting at home alone.

In other words, yes, women are fooling themselves when they have sex with a very attractive guy - if they are doing it purely for sexual reasons, then good for them, but if they aren't doing it just for sexual purposes and are actually trying to get a longterm relationship out of it, well, that is their right and they can try if they want but ultimately they will probably be unsuccessful.

[Deborah K]

This goes here:

[Rothbardian Girl]

...absolutely NOT what the man did. Read it again, and figure out where you twisted it.

Perhaps I should have been more clear by quoting one of his other posts in my response. I'll reproduce what I was specifically responding to below:

Part of the reason is that sex has a "market value" and women know that they can use that in order to obtain things that they want. Women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment. To give sex freely is of little worth to a woman. This is why "slut-shaming" is usually done by women against other women, since a woman that gives sex freely is undercutting the competition.

"Women are the gatekeepers of sex" pretty clearly indicates that women are meant to be seen as the suppliers in his analogy, and slut-shaming has been discussed as a method of "preserving the cartel" - exactly what he is saying here.

Exactly, don't go to places where people behave this way.

If you don't like America, well, you can just leave!

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Perhaps I should have been more clear by quoting one of his other posts in my response. I'll reproduce what I was specifically responding to below:


"Women are the gatekeepers of sex" pretty clearly indicates that women are meant to be seen as the suppliers in his analogy, and slut-shaming has been discussed as a method of "preserving the cartel" - exactly what he is saying here.


If you don't like America, well, you can just go leave!

I could make a video of me walking in the crappy section of a city for 10 hours with me carrying a 6 pack and produce a video of a dozen hobos asking me for a bottle.

[acptulsa]

Perhaps I should have been more clear by quoting one of his other posts in my response. I'll reproduce what I was specifically responding to below:


"Women are the gatekeepers of sex" pretty clearly indicates that women are meant to be seen as the suppliers in his analogy, and slut-shaming has been discussed as a method of "preserving the cartel" - exactly what he is saying here.

And my point is that men want women and women want men. And anyone who is trying to interfere with that, or trying to get people to go for what they don't really want in a member of the opposite sex, is propping up the divorce rate and making people miserable, and is therefore an enemy to humanity.

And as libertarians, we are fools to address the problem on their terms. That makes us part of the problem, when we are all better off figuring out how to untangle the whole thing and become (thereby) a part of the solution.

What's more, when you propose a solution that does not go against the natural instincts of people (even if it's just a cogent and erudite version of 'Don't worry about it,' you are more convincing to people of every political stripe.

I could make a video of me walking in the crappy section of a city for 10 hours with me carrying a 6 pack and produce a video of a dozen hobos asking me for a bottle.

No need to carry that much weight. Just put something the size and shape of a pack of cigarettes in your shirt pocket.

[specsaregood]

This is why I wish more of the general public would understand and support the idea of concealed carry. In my opinion, you would have been fully justified in shooting those guys.

Yeah, especially the guy that wished her a nice day and god bless you. she shoulda capped that guy!

[Matt Collins]

I like my (Manhattan based) job, and I'd rather put up with the neighbors (and the reggaeton at 2am) than leave the city!
That doesn't mean I need to condone and just accept the threatening and aggressive behavior of a minority of my neighbors.

Then that is a cost-benefit decision that you have made... accepting bad behavior from others because you like your job more than dislike the bad behavior.

[Philhelm]

Look, I'm just as much of a fan of economic analysis as anyone you'll ever meet, but there are several situations that cannot adequately be analyzed through the lens of simple supply and demand. Sex is one of those things. Essentially casting women as the supply curve and men as the demand curve is extremely reductive because it treats women as objects and ignores the myriad individual variations in sexual or relationship preferences. A more apt analogy is to consider men and women as independent agents rather than as a simple producer-consumer relationship.

Of course women enjoy sex too, but since men place a higher demand on sex (since it is more difficult for most of them to obtain), women are more readily able to leverage the transaction to their favor; they can have their cake and eat it too. In fact, women desire to have sex with the alpha male stud, and since the alpha stud would rather have sex with a female 7 than to go home alone for the night, the rest of the men are put at a severe disadvantage based upon their sexual market value pecking order. Why should the female 7 have sex with the male 7 when the alpha stud has approached her?

The market for sex is more accurately a barter economy that happens to be terribly inefficient. It isn't that women set their standards (or price) too high, it's that in a barter economy, there is no medium of exchange and thus the task is to find a partner that is both desirable and reciprocates that desire. Using this analysis, we avoid oversimplification and pave the way for some libertarian solutions, the biggest one of which is dating sites (they reduce transaction costs).

It isn't that women set their standards too high (that's for them to decide as individuals), but that they inflate their own sexual market value since even the 7 female will be utilized for sex by the top alpha men. What these women don't seem to understand is that these alpha men will never commit to or marry them ("Why can't I find a good man?" Syndrome). Since the 7 female is used to easily obtaining sex from men who are likely in the 8+ range, the 7 male will become invisible to her even though he may be the mate that best matches her.

Actually, dating sites are awful for men. There are many more men on the dating sites which gives women even more leverage than within the general population. An average woman could easily receive 50+ emails in one week, while an above-average male (perhaps a 7) will be lucky to receive any emails or many responses from females.

Suggesting that women heighten their standards, thereby encouraging "good men" to develop into their possible partners is analogous to suggesting that women form a cartel in which the agreement is to "not settle for bad men," but as we all know from Micro 101, there is an incentive for members of this cartel to defect; in other words, settle. So there will never be a solution to this ill that supposedly plagues society.

Standards are often impacted by what is obtainable. The top 50% of women can easily obtain sex from the top 25% of males, which leaves the bottom 75% of males to pick from the bottom 50% of females. A woman will settle when her sexual market value decreases. When a woman is young and pretty she is in her prime and can have her choice of men sexually, since women are the gatekeepers of sex. However, a man's sexual market value does not hit a hard wall since other factors such as status and wealth can provide enough fuel for him to continue dating younger women; in fact, a man in his early 20's is probably not at his peak sexual value. When the woman realizes that the alpha males are no longer interested, she will finally look at the 7 male to have a family with. Of course, this man doesn't give her the tingles like her previous alpha lovers had done, and she probably won't do the same things in the bedroom with her 7 husband than she would with a one-night-stand alpha stud. This is called "Alpha $#@!s/Beta Bucks." A woman will prefer the Alpha but will use the Beta to be a provider and "good father" (how sweet, but sweet doesn't give her the tingles).

The final problem with the usual "economics of sex" argument is that it ends up arguing that the men who pay the highest price for sex (marrying, "settling down") are the best men, but this is obviously biased and doesn't take people's wide sexual preferences into account. Essentially what this analysis is saying is that the best men hire the most expensive prostitutes.

This is wrong since men are the gatekeepers of commitment and the best men simply have no need to marry. Currently, the top men have absolutely no reason to marry a woman if sex is readily available. However, if a man does marry he does pay the higher price, since he is sacrificing possibly more frequent sex with a greater variety of women in exchange for the risk of divorce rape. It's the 7 male that becomes the sucker once the women who didn't even acknowledge him start to take interest only because they begin to realize that the alpha studs aren't coming around anymore.

[acptulsa]

This goes here:

If women catcalled men?

When did some of them ever not catcall men?

[Deborah K]

If women catcalled men?

When did some of them ever not catcall men?

Just trying to bring a little levity to the madness going on in this stupid ass thread.

[Philhelm]

I don't think you have it quite right. Women are attracted to men who are confident. Unfortunately, being an $#@! can look like confidence. But a man doesn't have to be an $#@! to be perceived as confident. In fact, he can be all of the things you list as "beta" but still be confident and attractive. It is the confidence that is key. Sadly, men who have every reason to be confident because of the characteristics you list as "beta", often have the idea that they should also be docile and compliant. THAT'S where the sexual attraction starts to drain away.

I agree with everything you stated. It's not that being stable, honest, intelligent, humorous, and kind are Beta traits, but that those are not the traits that give women the tingles (like Alpha traits produce). An Alpha can certainly have those traits, but a woman isn't going to have sex with a man because he is smart, funny, kind to animals, or whatever else women will say/write in person or on a dating profile.

The Bad Boy/Nice Guy dynamic is a bit disingenuous since it isn't so much that the Nice Guy is nice as he is a weakling. A woman doesn't really want a truly *BAD* Boy, but a bad person who is Alpha will have luck than a good person who is Beta.

[presence]

[Rothbardian Girl]

And my point is that men want women and women want men. And anyone who is trying to interfere with that, or trying to get people to go for what they don't really want in a member of the opposite sex, is propping up the divorce rate and making people miserable, and is therefore an enemy to humanity.

And as libertarians, we are fools to address the problem on their terms. That makes us part of the problem, when we are all better off figuring out how to untangle the whole thing and become (thereby) a part of the solution.

What's more, when you propose a solution that does not go against the natural instincts of people (even if it's just a cogent and erudite version of 'Don't worry about it,' you are more convincing to people of every political stripe.

The biggest problem I see with your post is that you are making all sorts of assumptions and expecting me to take things as given. Going off of what you said, men want women and women want men. But the "interference" you speak of is purely defensive, a reaction against what has already been historically imposed as part of a 'political' (being used here in its most general sense) process. The "natural instincts of people" you go on to cite is a loaded term with no clear definition - it is clear that every person has his or her own wants, needs and desires (themselves not always static), and so what can rightly be called "natural?" If you are referring to social trends that have been culturally dominant, it is impossible to tell whether these trends are actually natural (biologically-based) or artificial. A plethora of evidence points to these so-called "natural instincts" being at best downright untestable, and at worst not actually natural at all.

It is exceedingly libertarian-minded to question the existing order, the divorce rate be damned (and do you not see how you are making an unjustified normative judgment here?). I think for at least some people, there is a strong correlation between being married and miserable... not all, which is a fascinating question in its own right, but a subject not suitable for this particular thread. People asking the same questions I am *are* untangling the whole thing and de-politicizing the things many people have become conditioned to accept. This has nothing to do with Hillary 2016, though shallow people may think it does. There is a marked difference between garden-variety pop feminism and the stuff that gets discussed among people with a legitimate knowledge of the subject matter.

[pessimist]

I agree with everything you stated. It's not that being stable, honest, intelligent, humorous, and kind are Beta traits, but that those are not the traits that give women the tingles (like Alpha traits produce). An Alpha can certainly have those traits, but a woman isn't going to have sex with a man because he is smart, funny, kind to animals, or whatever else women will say/write in person or on a dating profile.

The Bad Boy/Nice Guy dynamic is a bit disingenuous since it isn't so much that the Nice Guy is nice as he is a weakling. A woman doesn't really want a truly *BAD* Boy, but a bad person who is Alpha will have luck than a good person who is Beta.

Yes, because ALL women just can't keep their panties on around the chest thumping "ME- MAN, ME- COMMAND, ME MAKE YOU HORNY!" Alpha male studs.

You do realize many of those dudes are viciously mocked by women with an IQ over 100, right?

Sure, some of them maybe worthy of a one night stand if he hot enough or she is drunk enough, but come on man. This 'alpha/beta' stuff is mostly bull$#@! that is best left in the jungle where it came from.

[PaulConventionWV]

No, you're being willfully ignorant.

When you try to analyze these things, you can't think about it from a male point of view. Men don't get constantly cat-called while walking down the street like women do nor do they fear being sexually assaulted by an aggressive stranger. A guy might think it's flattering because he doesn't experience the 'joys' of being constantly shouted at and cat-called, so any compliment for a man will be flattering since it happens so infrequently in this manner. Your average woman has to put up with these advances, creepy behavior and cat-calls just for walking down the street minding their own business every day. It's not difficult to understand why random strangers even saying something as simple as "have a good day" or whatever it is, can be annoying or come across as an advance.

That's because of the fact that men are usually stronger than women and more aggressive. They're not afraid to walk down the street because they know they have a much better chance of being able to repel any aggression. So what if it's true that women have to fear this more? It's due to biology. What are you going to do about it? Outlaw compliments that "seem creepy"?

Sure, it may be a dickish thing to do, but who is it hurting, honestly? If someone commits violence against a woman, they deserve the fullest justice under the law, but not until then. How does anyone propose we change this? There will always be weirdos on the street and no amount of social engineering is going to fix that.

Seriously, who has an idea for how we stop thugs from cat-calling? What does it help to even bring attention to this issue?

[Philhelm]

"Women are the gatekeepers of sex" pretty clearly indicates that women are meant to be seen as the suppliers in his analogy, and slut-shaming has been discussed as a method of "preserving the cartel" - exactly what he is saying here.

Women are not strictly the suppliers of sex since they also want sex (from alpha males). However, they are the gatekeepers of sex since they are the ones to decide which men they will have sex with. After all, it is far, far easier for women to have a high partner count then men. Similarly, homosexual men tend to have high partner counts since their sexual success does not depend on the female "gatekeeper." The counterbalance is that men are the gatekeepers of commitment (this does NOT mean that men don't want to commit - to the right woman).

Men have no reason to hate sluts, aside from the fact that they aren't relationship material, and therefore have less of a reason to "slut shame." It's mostly women that complain about other slutty women. Along with bona fide prostitutes, slutty women reduce the value of the average woman's pedestalled vagina. In strictly sexual terms, why should a man commit to a woman when he can have sex through simple monetary transaction or have it freely given by the "slut?"

[Deborah K]

In strictly sexual terms, why should a man commit to a woman when he can have sex through simple monetary transaction or have it freely given by the "slut?"

You'll never find a truthful answer to this question. I would say most men crave loving relationships with women as much as women do. For men who love their women, sex is the way they feel loved back. So, if a women who loves her man, isn't meeting that need, her man isn't going to feel loved - no matter how clean the house is, or how good she looks, or how good she cooks. amirite?

[Philhelm]

Yes, because ALL women just can't keep their panties on around the chest thumping "ME- MAN, ME- COMMAND, ME MAKE YOU HORNY!" Alpha male studs.

An Alpha male isn't the same thing as a meathead, chest-thumping jock. A man of good looks, confidence, and high status is going to get a more favorable reaction from women than Joe Average, 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).

You do realize many of those dudes are viciously mocked by women with an IQ over 100, right?

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.

Sure, some of them maybe worthy of a one night stand if he hot enough or she is drunk enough, but come on man. This 'alpha/beta' stuff is mostly bull$#@! that is best left in the jungle where it came from.

Alpha $#@!s/Beta Bucks. Of course a hot, young stud who lives with his parents isn't good long-term relationship. She may marry or have a long-term relationship with the man who can better provide for her, but she probably did things to the stud that she wouldn't do with her own husband (even though he craves those things). This is where you get situations where a woman will talk about how she used to have threesomes, or perform certain sexual acts, but won't with her husband (whom she presumably loves above all others) because "she's not like that anymore." LOL - that's not the real reason. The real reason is that her sweet husband and loving father to her children does not invoke the same fires within her that she had experienced when she rode the cock carousel in her youth.

[acptulsa]

But the "interference" you speak of is purely defensive, a reaction against what has already been historically imposed as part of a 'political' (being used here in its most general sense) process. The "natural instincts of people" you go on to cite is a loaded term with no clear definition...

There is some truth to that, just as the Civil Rights Act was a defensive reaction to a politicized situation. But by the same token, much of what the Civil Rights Act (to a lesser degree) and what has come after (to a greater degree) has brought to pass is no cure, but instead seemingly designed to prolong the agony. Yes, it's good that no one is still trapped by peer pressure and law into miserable marriages. But no child benefits from the growing attitude that members of the opposite sex are disposable goods. Children can thrive with step- or foster- or adoptive-parents, but no one can know them better than their natural parents. To have people not taking the relationship that produces their children seriously at any point has clearly not been beneficial to society. And when I say that, what I mean is it hasn't led to happy people.

And of course 'natural instincts' has no clear definition. How could it? We are all imperfect people, and most of us have 'good instincts' which means we're really looking for people whose strengths mirror our weaknesses. Unless, of course, we've been brainwashed into thinking we need and deserve someone who looks like Brad Pitt, or plays the guitar, or has power, or drives a Porsche, or...

I think for at least some people, there is a strong correlation between being married and miserable... not all, which is a fascinating question in its own right, but a subject not suitable for this particular thread.

How not? This whole War on Men Who are Allegedly Already at War With Women is highly politicized. That's absolutely prime fodder for this thread, this forum and the libertarian philosophy.

It is exceedingly libertarian-minded to question the existing order, the divorce rate be damned (and do you not see how you are making an unjustified normative judgment here?). People asking the same questions I am *are* untangling the whole thing and de-politicizing the things many people have become conditioned to accept. This has nothing to do with Hillary 2016, though shallow people may think it does. There is a marked difference between garden-variety pop feminism and the stuff that gets discussed among people with a legitimate knowledge of the subject matter.

Hm. You say to hell with the divorce rate and say that you're de-politicizing the thing with the same breath. Well, then. Please excuse me for, as a disposable man, thinking that you just might have only half of a legitimate knowledge of the subject matter...

And, yes, libertarians do question the status quo. So do progs. That's quite a trap. But it isn't that hard to avoid a pratfall.

"A liberal is a man who wants to use his own ideas on things in preference to generations who he knows know more than he does."--Will Rogers 1923

'We come here to honor the past, and in doing so render more secure the present.'--Calvin Coolidge

[Philhelm]

You'll never find a truthful answer to this question. I would say most men crave loving relationships with women as much as women do. For men who love their women, sex is the way they feel loved back. So, if a women who loves her man, isn't meeting that need, her man isn't going to feel loved - no matter how clean the house is, or how good she looks, or how good she cooks. amirite?

Absolutely correct.

[thoughtomator]

You'll never find a truthful answer to this question. I would say most men crave loving relationships with women as much as women do. For men who love their women, sex is the way they feel loved back. So, if a women who loves her man, isn't meeting that need, her man isn't going to feel loved - no matter how clean the house is, or how good she looks, or how good she cooks. amirite?

I'll meet that challenge.

Because when a man has relationships with two or more women at a time, they gang up on him, and then he is guaranteed to be miserable.

[Deborah K]

I'll meet that challenge.

Because when a man has relationships with two or more women at a time, they gang up on him, and then he is guaranteed to be miserable.

And deservedly so.

I don't think that is exactly the pretext Phil had in mind to his question though.

[PaulConventionWV]

Regardless of whatever this video pulled up or where it happened, catcalling is the activity of an utter douchebag and I wish it were more treated as such. I've never heard myself or any friend I've ever had talking about doing it, but when it does happen it is unacceptable.

I completely agree with this, but my only question is what in the hell does this accomplish? What does putting videos of catcalling on the internet do to achieve anything? You certainly can't prosecute that behavior, so why does anyone even bring attention to this? All women need to worry about is whether someone is going to be violent, and that's why defending oneself should be legal.

What happened to just rolling your eyes and moving along? Now we have to go on some kind of campaign to raise awareness? What does that accomplish? Being aware of it is not going to stop it from happening. Nothing will.

This doesn't even take into account the fact that there was only 90 seconds of footage and many of the things people said weren't that bad, not to mention the fact that she was walking in bad neighborhoods to begin with.

What's the point of making videos about this?

[PaulConventionWV]

The thing is, no one here is comparing crimes besides the men who commented here trying to make a point; because otherwise they had no point.

"I've never see it."
"Don't walk around $#@! neighborhoods, then."

How ridiculous.

And then the conversation went to her looks.



Like mine, which was given no attention. So, how about you take your self-righteous "twisted opinion and stick it where the sun don't shine" - if you can manage to, with your head already up there.

Why is it bad advice not to walk around $#@! neighborhoods? I'm in the middle of f***ing West Virginia and even I know that poor, low-class trash people tend to live in the same places. What's so ridiculous about telling people in general to avoid those places?

[juleswin]

Open carry would cut this phenomenon by 80%.

Take it easy man, what you see is people participating in the mating dance. It may no the way you do your dance but start shooting people trying to pick you up and people like me will be coming after you to kick your ass.

I know it can be frustrating woman to go through but some men are just trying to pick you up. And the way most of them conducted themselves, I see no reason to be pulling out guns or trying to change laws. This video is a compilation of some of the least offensive cat calling I have heard in my life. God bless you, beautiful? come on guys, this is NY city, act accordingly.

And for the people who wonder why anyone would cat call, it is because it works. I have seen it work on several occasions with my 2 naked eyes. Some girls actually stop, have a conversation and exchange numbers.