snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 15 December 2017, 01:49 AM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
What do you mean by "entrapment" RichardM? I'm trying to think of any definition that has anything at all to do with how someone dresses and nothing fits.
Entrapment means going out and spending lots of money on clothes that are deliberately too revealing. Then using language to try to get said congressman to make a pass at you so that you can then threaten them with revealing their actions so that the congressman will vote the way you want them to. See "honey trap."
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 15 December 2017, 01:52 AM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Pink Pill View Post
If you remove the phrase “and she was flirting” would you still think her clothing choice was a kind of entrapment?
No. Clothing choice could simply be poor. Her actions would govern. Also, said actions can occur even if the woman was wearing the most modest of clothing.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 15 December 2017, 01:56 AM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
So why bring it up?
In an attempt to explain that sometimes, the man might be right. Although as I stated none of the public cases so far seem that way with the exception of perhaps Al Franken's. He seems to simply be an ass who thinks almost everything he does is funny.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 15 December 2017, 02:01 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,415
Icon05

Why is it so hard to understand that what someone wears isn't an invitation to do anything - even if it's a T-shirt that says something to the effect? It just isn't. "Deliberately too revealing"? What century are we in? For some people just showing a calf is "deliberately too revealing". Just because some people call it "sexy" doesn't mean it has anything to do with sex.

That's not what entrapment means, by the way.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 15 December 2017, 02:01 AM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
Because, for one thing, there are far too many people prepared to believe that men are innocent victims of women who are trying to lead them astray.
Very true. And many of these people are those who think pregnancy outside of marriage is a punishment of the woman.

Please read what I said about seduction. It happens both ways. Again we need to keep an open mind. Who knows, Roy Moore could be innocent. And if you believe that, I have some beach front property for sale in Arizona. On wait, with global warming, that might be true.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 15 December 2017, 02:03 AM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
And bringing up the idea that women sometimes try to seduce men helps with the victim blaming how?
I don't feel that these two things are related except that victim blaming can go both ways as can seduction.

ETA: Strange as it may seem, being male does not make one guilty.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 15 December 2017, 02:15 AM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,283
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardM View Post
Entrapment means going out and spending lots of money on clothes that are deliberately too revealing. Then using language to try to get said congressman to make a pass at you so that you can then threaten them with revealing their actions so that the congressman will vote the way you want them to. See "honey trap."
In that case, why bother? Why not just lie. It just seems awfully contrived to go to all the trouble of getting the "to be accused" to do what you want to accuse them of when there are no witnesses to begin with.

I mean, why not just skip "the language to try to get said congressman to make a pass at you" and go straight to saying "the congressman made a pass at me"? Honey ain't cheap, after all. Call it Bathsheba's Razor or something: you don't need to go to the trouble of actually seducing King David if your aim is blackmail and your only evidence will be your word vs. his.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 15 December 2017, 02:16 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,415
Default

There's no seduction in any of the examples you've given, RichardM. Being turned on by the sight of an ankle or the top of a woman's breasts or bare shoulder - or whatever body part one chooses - is not "seduction". Even flirting isn't seduction, though it may indeed be harassment or otherwise inappropriate. Now if someone deliberately removes clothing in front of someone to reveal their body maybe that's different. That's not what we're talking about.

If someone wears an "I'm with stupid" T-Shirt do we automatically assume it means they think the person they're with is stupid? That's the level of logic we're talking about. It's just an article of clothing. It might mean something personal or it might mean they think someone is stupid but assuming it means something to every person of the opposite gender is irrational.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 15 December 2017, 02:17 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 11,974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardM View Post
I don't feel that these two things are related except that victim blaming can go both ways as can seduction.

ETA: Strange as it may seem, being male does not make one guilty.
I'm trying to find the place in this thread where anyone even hinted that being male automatically makes one guilty.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 15 December 2017, 02:23 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
In that case, why bother? Why not just lie.
Plus, if you're going to "seduce" someone, why telegraph that to the rest of the world? So they can just slut shame (g)you and be done with the matter? Makes no sense at all.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 15 December 2017, 02:53 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,608
Default

Plus, the response should still not be to make sexual advances on the person.

If g-you think they're trying to entrap you, surely entering the supposed trap wouldn't make any sense?

So keep it in g-your own pants in the office. Entrapment, seduction, or the last clean shirt left in the closet, what difference does it make? That's not the time or the place for it.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 15 December 2017, 05:13 AM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
For some people just showing a calf is "deliberately too revealing". Just because some people call it "sexy" doesn't mean it has anything to do with sex.
This point is such a good one. The definition of modesty is both cultural and personal, and can vary from region to region, family to family, generation to generation. It’s dangerous to assume that one person’s idea of “deliberalty revealing” is the same as another’s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardM View Post
No. Clothing choice could simply be poor. Her actions would govern.
Poor? Or personal?

Actions can be easily misinterpreted, too. This is why verbal consent is a very good thing to wait for.

I agree with others that don’t know what the point of tricking someone into sexual harassment would be. Even assuming there are a few people out there who want to do this (humans being strange creatures), what you’re describing would be a bad way of going about it.

Last edited by Little Pink Pill; 15 December 2017 at 05:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 15 December 2017, 10:11 AM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 3,954
Default

If any bloke in a rugby shirt/football jersey is suddenly tackled by a massive stranger, why, then they were asking for it.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 15 December 2017, 06:46 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,870
Default

Random thought vaguely inspired by the mention of Congressional dress codes:

Linda Ellerbee wrote that when she became NBC's House correspondent in the 1970's, she infuriated many of her male colleagues by showing at the capitol building casually dressed in jeans, sneakers, and comfortable sweaters. The dress code required the men to wear jackets and ties....but at that time, there was no dress code for women; whoever had written the original one hadn't considered the possibility of female reporters.

I'm sure that's changed long since, but she made the most of it while she could.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 15 December 2017, 06:52 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Plus, the response should still not be to make sexual advances on the person.
The thread title is "harassment" not "sexual advances". Harassment is an extremely broad term and could including simply looking at someone.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 15 December 2017, 08:53 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardM View Post
Entrapment means going out and spending lots of money on clothes that are deliberately too revealing.
Another mystery is what "spending lots of money" has to do with anything at all. Working women not only have to be extra careful what they wear but also how much they spend on their clothes?? Because... Men are seduced by expensive clothes too? Or is that a bribe trap?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 15 December 2017, 09:18 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
Harassment is an extremely broad term and could including simply looking at someone.
Theoretically that is true, but of the dozens and dozens of sexual harassment claims to have come out recently, all of them that I'm aware of have at least verbal, often physical. Probably the least severe workplace harassment is the self-confessed harassment by Morgan Spurlock, who called a female assistant "hot pants" or "sex pants".
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 15 December 2017, 09:24 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
The thread title is "harassment" not "sexual advances". Harassment is an extremely broad term and could including simply looking at someone.
Cite, please, for anyone brought up on harassment charges, or being hassled in the media about, "simply looking at someone" in the clothes the person looked at had chosen to wear out in public.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 15 December 2017, 10:21 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,755
Default

Especially with it phrased as "simply" looking at someone. Leering or other ways of looking at someone suggestively or sexually aren't "simply looking at someone."
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 16 December 2017, 11:39 PM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,103
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blatherskite View Post
If any bloke in a rugby shirt/football jersey is suddenly tackled by a massive stranger, why, then they were asking for it.
I’m reminded of this meme. Though he really shouldn’t walk around in such flammable clothing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Man told he can't wear shorts to office, abides by the dress code for women instead TallGeekyGirl Social Studies 56 26 June 2017 12:12 PM
Trump Jr. Suggested Women Who Can’t Take Harassment “Don’t Belong In The Workforce” TallGeekyGirl Social Studies 10 14 October 2016 08:52 PM
Let's drug-test the rich before approving tax deductions, US congresswoman says firefighter_raven Soapbox Derby 3 18 June 2016 01:59 AM
Wentworth Miller comes out in letter turning down St. Petersburg film festival invite Canuckistan Amusement Bark 1 21 August 2013 11:15 PM
Women Increase by one dress size per decade? llewtrah Medical 73 03 February 2007 03:26 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.