Comments on: “Do we need a law against catcalling?”

By: Police and prosecution roundup - Overlawyered

Police and prosecution roundup - Overlawyered — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 05:15:19 +0000

[…] “There’s not much to do about catcalling, unless you’re willing to see a lot more minority men hassled by the police” [Kay Hymowitz, Time] Peer pressure seems to be a factor in restraining it [Andrew Sullivan] The “practice of catcalling is most taboo among members of the upper classes.” [Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic, earlier] […]

By: Marty Murphy

Marty Murphy — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:46:47 +0000

No means yes; yes means aural.

By: Heresolong

Heresolong — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 03:20:21 +0000

Or perhaps a “Yes means yes” agreement wherein both cat-caller and cat-callee would sign a legal agreement regarding the boundaries of their relationship.

By: DEM

DEM — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:10:59 +0000

Wouldn’t it be easier for the left to get itself a 3×5 notecard and give us an exhaustive list of the speech of it which it actually (if reluctantly) approves?

And of course this is a natural outgrowth of the ever-expanding workplace regulation of “offensive” sexual speech. If we can ban even playful sexual banter in the workplace, why not extend it to all other aspects of life? Henceforth, lawsuits over unwanted sexual advances at singles bars.

By: Canvasback

Canvasback — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 18:33:28 +0000

Interesting. Laura Beth is sort of working off the Sharia premise of women being escorted in public by a male relative. In this case the one she picked is her Uncle Sam.