Almost all young women in the UK have been sexually harassed, survey finds
Virtually all young women in the UK have been subjected to sexual harassment, according to a survey from UN Women UK, which warns that most women have lost faith that the abuse will be dealt with. Among women aged 18-24, 97% said they had been sexually harassed, while 80% of women of all ages said they had experienced sexual harassment in public spaces.
>>42527 Pedantically, I saw it reported with the specific wording that suspects are disproportionately laplanderstani, which is a big difference from perpetrators being disproportionately laplanderstani. There's no evidence for what you've said (that's why the report wants the police to start recording ethnicity/nationality data).
A government report is a very poor source of facts in this country: We're a nation of policy-based evidence. Isn't it odd that at a time when the right were calling for it, when the government thinks that if it moves right it'll get those voters back and, cynically, because a decade has passed and many of the responsible people will have moved on, an inquiry has found exactly what the doctor ordered? Isn't it odd how this is always what happens here?
I'm not saying this specific inquiry is wrong, but a British newspaper covering the results of a government report that said newspapers demanded, by a government that said newspapers helped into office, which has basically reached the conclusion those newspapers want? That is about as reliable a source of information as gyromancy.
>Pedantically, I saw it reported with the specific wording that suspects are disproportionately laplanderstani, which is a big difference from perpetrators being disproportionately laplanderstani.
Racial profiling, innit.
Similar to predictive policing. Which, then again, is even worse, because it creates feedback loops where more police are sent to patrol what are thought to be more crime prone areas, which leads to more arrests, which then makes those areas look even more crime prone, and so on.
'They've never heard the word masculinity without the word toxic'
The Manchester Evening News observed a Progressive Masculinity workshop at Moorside High School, where boys are encouraged to explore who they want to be without judgement.
>>42615 This is the fourth or fifth time I've seen a link to this, and every time, it's phrased with barely-veiled terror that they've all been sent to ISIS's local hooligan rapist training camp to learn from R Kelly and Puff Daddy. I refuse to click the link, but I bet it's nothing like that, which makes it feel very intriguing how the only way to get people to click on such a thing is to say that men with over 9000 penises are being indoctrinated by our schools to reject feminism and despise women. It says a lot about who actually clicks these stories.
Quite the opposite actually. Well, not the exact opposite, but you know what I mean.
It's more like, they've realised how maybe they need for masculinity to be not completely the jack of all scapegoats satan devil, so they are trying to rehabilitate this idea of a positive masculinity; but which is more acceptable to the keepers of the faith. So they get a hard man macho army bloke to talk to young lads in that "how do you do fellow men" way, but gently nudge them away from Tate's dark side and towards being good women respecting jedi.
It's.... It's not all bad. It's a step in the right direction, frankly. But the trouble with it is the same as everything like this. Lads will see through it. They'll know it's not genuinely neutral or organic, they'll know it's just Big Ideology trying to push them towards the currently orthodoxy. And for that reason alone, regardless of the substance, a great many of them will reject it.
To me there's one frank and brutal fact I think needs acknowledging and, in some way, addressing or reconciling somehow. That fact is that whatever your definition of masculinity, whatever you think of as a positive or negative idea of how to be a man, the truth of the matter is that a lad's choices are still, and likely always will be, largely dictated by what women like. You can be any kind of man you want- As long as it's one women will find desirable. There's a lot of room to manoeuvre within that boundary, but you cannot step outside it. Otherwise you will end up alone and bitter and resentful. And that's basically just how it is.
There's no way of getting round that, you can even still blame the patriarchy for it if you want, fine. But just accept it and acknowledge it at least. Because otherwise you are teaching lads a dishonest lesson. It's the same way we told a generation of kids to go to uni and get a degree in media studies instead of learning a trade, it's idealistic more than useful, but once people realise they were lied to, you can't get them back on side.
At least, if we have the Secretary for Sex telling us we need to have more kids. Got to square that circle somehow.
>>42620 It reads like he's doing it on his own initiative actually and started it as a lunchtime club after boys kept coming to talk to him. And the kids liked it enough that he turned it into his thing.
I do admit that it's a weird story, yeah teenage boys come out with a lot of bollocks. I remember some motivational speaker coming to our school and he asked us what the meaning of life was to which some boy shouted 'pussy'. That was bravado back then but you could read a lot into what we came out with just as we do now.
Still I think it's true that boys follow role models and it can produce good results if they have a decent bloke they can talk to and learn how to be a man from.
>That fact is that whatever your definition of masculinity, whatever you think of as a positive or negative idea of how to be a man, the truth of the matter is that a lad's choices are still, and likely always will be, largely dictated by what women like. You can be any kind of man you want- As long as it's one women will find desirable. There's a lot of room to manoeuvre within that boundary, but you cannot step outside it. Otherwise you will end up alone and bitter and resentful. And that's basically just how it is.
Lad, there's a lot that I think you need to get a handle on. For starters men who do the more feminine hobbies like drama and art make out like bandits, the sensitive drama kid and Gaz down the pub might are polar opposites that still get their ends away. I'm sorry whatever woman burnt you when you opened up to her but that doesn't mean you should never talk to women again just as no woman should go down the 'all men are pigs' route because some lad didn't like her being a tomboy or what you think unwomanly behaviour is.
Lad, I didn't think it was a controversial statement to suggest that in order to get laid and therefore not end up a bitter chronic sperglord, you need to be appealing to the opposite sex. Do you disagree with that?
I don't even know what you are angry at. To me it's about as obvious as the sky being blue, but just saying it brings you out in histrionics somehow. I think that's pretty fucking illustrative of the wider issue here.
>>42624 Because you can't define what this masculine spark is that women demand of us. I'm asking you to get out of Plato's cave and tell us what this essence of male sexuality actually is. What is this 'lynx effect' I've been hearing so much about?
>>42625 I'm not him, but I think your issue here is that you want universality, which you're never going to get. If there is a "masculine spark", then I would argue that it's independence; women want a man who is an entire life on his own that they can drop in and out of without pressure. They do not want a man who will be dependent on them; needy or clingy men make a relationship awkward and stressful and unenjoyable. So you need to create your entire life, with hobbies and friends and a career, and then women will look at that and decide if your life is a life they want to join in with. The bit that's causing issues for you, I think, is that once you live this free and independent life, some women will like it and some won't, and you have absolutely no way of predicting in advance which ones will like what. So you can do everything right, and if you're trying to impress a specific woman, it still might not work. But it'll work on other women, and they will fancy you instead. And if you want a happy relationship, I think he's right: I think you will have to just learn to focus your attention on the women who like you, because I'm not confident that it is at all possible to change a woman's mind about you if they don't already fancy you.
You full on don't understand the point you are arguing against.
The point is that that whatever it is, it's largely decided by women, not men. It's not men who decide what women fancy. Women decide what women fancy. So it's all well and good saying a healthy masculine role model is this or that, if women don't generally like whatever you decide that is, and instead tend to gravitate towards something else.
We're talking about straight men by and large here so while there's a multitude of things a man can be and not even have to worry about being attractive to women, if you want a lad not to be a chronic, then you do have to teach him at least the basics of what women like and want masculinity to be. Which means we better ask them.
The trouble is their answer might not be what you want it to be, and it might not even be what they are supposed to say. But either way they have a great deal of sway over the outcome.
>>42627 We're definitely talking at cross-purposes here, because I made it clear I was someone else and you ignored that, and then you repeated your points even though, from my perspective, I thought my post was explaining what you need to consider and it feels like you ignored that. But let's keep arguing a bit longer.
>It's not men who decide what women fancy. Women decide what women fancy.
Any woman decides what she herself fancies, yes, but she doesn't decide what all women everywhere fancy. Different women like different things. Some women love penniless scumbags, while other women love rich corporate dickheads. They don't fancy each other's men. If you focus on becoming Jeff Bezos to impress women, you will impress the women who like Jeff Bezos, but the women who fancy GG Allin will hate you. You won't be cucking Eddie Hall if you look like one of the Twilight characters. And while this admittedly makes it impossible to make yourself attractive to all women simultaneously, it has the upside that some woman, somewhere, probably fancies you just the way you are right now. You just need to meet her. That's the bit that chronic masturbators can't do.
Also, this event was not about "how to attract women"; it was about finding your own personal identity. If your entire identity consists of nothing more than meeting women, isn't that a little bit empty? A bit lame? Would you even go so far as to agree with me that telling teenage boys that their value in society is directly tied to the opinions of the teenage girls they know, would actually be a bad tactic?
And again, I will return to my previous point: if you want to teach teenage boys to appeal to society as universally as possible, my opinion is that the best thing you can teach them is how to carve out their own personal identity. Everything else will follow from there. But perhaps you disagree on this.
I actually quoted the wrong post, and none of that was aimed at you. Sorry.
I agree with most of what you are saying. Which is to say, most of what you are saying is a somewhat more refined way of trying to say what I am getting at.
The bit where it goes in circles for me is that you have to teach people how to be well rounded individuals, but you (not you personally, I mean the ambiguous hypothetical subject you) can't admit that the reason for that, indeed the reason for practically every endeavour in the entire of human history, is so that they have better chances of getting laid.
>Around one in eight women were victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse or stalking in the last year, according to new estimates.
>The figures have been published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) as part of its Crime Survey for England and Wales for the year up to March 2025. The survey found 5.2 million people aged 16 and over (10.6%) were likely to have experienced one or more of these crime types - but the percentage was higher for women (12.8%) as opposed to 8.4% of men.
>>42726 >>42727 I didn't see it on social media, so: I think this could arguably be a good thing, because these men are not behaving maliciously and the best way to tackle this is through education. Getting pulled over by the cops to tell you not to harass women is a damn good way to teach people that message.
But none of that will fly as an argument, of course, because of the instant one-hit gotcha that ends any discussion about things like this: what about all the real crimes?
Is it really a gotcha though? I think the only issue is that first, we need to put down the obvious groundwork and make it illegal to do anything which might conceivably make a woman uncomfortable for any reason. Then these creeps have no leg to stand on.
I don't think we will truly have a world which is safe for women until we reach the stage where any woman can just point at a man and have him arrested and thrown in jail for no reason other than she felt like it, and you're an chronic masturbator if you disagree.
>>42729 Coppers should preemtively stop burglaries by posting themselves to each and every home and hiding in your cupboard until you get home and relieve them.
> Police are appealing for help after reports of a man being acting "suspiciously" while walking behind a woman. Surrey Police received a report of a man acting suspiciously at around 5pm on Thursday, February 20 near West End Common.
>It was reported a woman was walking her dog along the River Mole in Esher when she noticed a man walking behind her in a manner that made her feel uncomfortable.
As always, reality is far ahead of us all.
I've read suggestions that men should cross the street to avoid walking too close behind or next to women they don't know. But I say fuck that. I've got just as much a right to walk anywhere I like as some paranoid random woman. I'm not a threat to anybody, and I wouldn't dream of harrassing women in the street. And as long as I don't show behaviour to the contrary, I have a right to expect others to give me that benefit of doubt.
>>42734 >a man being acting
Making minor concessions so as to not frighten strangers seems reasonable to me, policing it is ridiculous. Something quite telling about the copper in t'other video saying they need to keep tabs on cat-callers because they might go on to commit other crimes. Cat-calling isn't exactly nice, but it's not exactly strangling small animals either. They're just making up slippery slopes now.
>they need to keep tabs on cat-callers because they might go on to commit other crimes.
If we make catcalling a crime, only criminals will catcall.
Not every socially unacceptable and offensive behaviour needs to be made a crime. Fine, shouting "PHWOAR, LOOK AT THOSE TITS" after somebody is probably some ways beyond that. But that aside, I think a lot of the debate stems from GenZ's constant self-perceived victimhood.
Should you mind your manners and be polite enough to just leave women alone in the street unless they show a clear interest in you? Absolutely. But are we really going to treat even the slightest deviation from that as a crime?
They need to make it crystal clear what constitutes cat calling. If I say to an attractive woman "wowie I love your dress" is that cat calling? Even if done respectfully, calling a woman beautiful is inappropriate oftentimes.
"A person is guilty of an offence if he uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
Complementing someone's dress might be "catcalling", but it's not a crime unless the manner in which you said it was obviously threatening; even then, you'd be hard pressed to prove it without witnesses.
There's an interesting issue with using police officers as bait because of the precedent set in Harvey vs DPP, which essentially established that police officers are necessarily thick-skinned because of the nature of their work, so are much less liable to be alarmed or distressed than the general public. Simply swearing at or insulting a police officer isn't in itself a public order offence unless the officer in question suffered "real emotional disturbance or upset".
>threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby
Right, well, as I said, there are some behaviours that are very obviously within the scope of Section 5. And that's what it's for. No argument there.
But real life isn't always as cut and dry. It's not that you shouldn't go after people who display that kind of behaviour. But where does it stop being just a bit rude, and where does harrassment begin. If all we go by is how that person's impression who is at the receiving end, then there is a danger that even minute transgressions are a potential criminal offence.
The end result would then be that men, in particular, will avoid any interaction with women in public at all. And we're already seeing some of that, where men no longer hold doors open for women, or don't want to be alone in the same room with them. And it's then women who complain that chivalry is dead.
>Prominent women including cultural figures, politicians and campaigners have signed a letter criticising rightwing attempts to link sexual violence in Britain to asylum seekers. Signatories include the musicians Paloma Faith, Charlotte Church and Anoushka Shankar as well as Labour, Green and independent MPs including Kim Johnson, Ellie Chowns, Diane Abbott and Zarah Sultana. The Labour MPs Nadia Whittome, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mary Kelly Foy, the Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti, and the general secretaries of unions including the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, the Public and Commercial Services Union and the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/02/women-stop-linking-asylum-seekers-sexual-abuse
Why don't they get it. What possible counter-argument do they think they're presenting to a far-right narrative about white working class girls being neglected by a cosmopolitan elite class?
It's obvious to you that the way you counteract right-wing narrative/fear of working class women being abused and ignored is to get a load to elite cosmopolitan women together to tell them that they're wrong?
The part that they're all struggling with is "per capita". Men from laplanderstan and Afghanistan - the two largest countries of origin of asylum seekers in the UK - are drastically more likely to perpetrate sexual violence than the national average.
We've been over this with the grooming gangs scandal. Lots of people argued that white men do noncing too, that the issue of grooming gangs had nothing to do with race or nationality, then a formal enquiry showed that 2/3rds of grooming gang perpetrators were laplanderstani.
It's just farcical to on the one hand point out the appalling way in which women are treated in a country like Afghanistan, but on the other pretend that Afghan men will suddenly embrace enlightened western attitudes to women the second they set foot on British soil. It's obviously revolting to most people to argue that it's fine if most Afghan men are horrendous misogynists, because there aren't many of them and they don't know any better. The pro-immigration left don't have any answers to this thorny issue, so they just deny reality, but in doing so they completely discredit their other arguments and breed a sense of mistrust and betrayal.
They could put forward an argument along the lines of "We know a lot of men from these countries have incredibly iffy attitudes to women, but we've got a moral duty to take them in if they're genuinely fleeing persecution. The government has to uphold their duties under international law, but they also have to uphold their duty to protect the British people. We should accept legitimate adult male asylum seekers, but we should be double-careful about whether their claim is actually legitimate, we should keep a close eye on them and we should come down on them like a ton of bricks if they betray our hospitality." I would invite you to draw your own conclusions about why they aren't making that kind of argument.
Depends who you think they and them are. On the one hand you've got a load of bad faith weird right wing fisherperson evangelist christian korean youtuber types muddying the water, on the other you have a bunch of newspaper editors and scummy journos who just see the click count going off the chart for covering it all, but somewhere underneath it there's ordinary people who have the plain gut instinct that Laplander asylum boat blokes are a set of rapey carpet-baggery pervs, and a liberal left elite who still insist on going "nuh uh!"
>>42776 A Sky News woman is interviewing a eskimo man in the street about local tensions relating to immigrant hotels. Two drunk scumbag women come over and start yelling at him to go back where he came from and calling him a paedo. The rest of the video is an interview with the Sky News woman about how it made her feel, which is less interesting but I couldn't find the video without at least some filler.
I enjoy these kinds of contradictions that make prevailing liberal ideology strain at the seams though. How do we reconcile women's feelings always being the most important thing that we must unquestioningly cater to, with the fact that actually women are often horrible bigots and their feelings are prejudiced nonsense? Are immigrants saints or the devil? It didn't matter before, but now it's affecting women.
I don't think either of you have the capacity to understand the level of sheer cynicism I am operating on here. I don't give a fuck how tightly you clutch your pearls, it's just one kind of oppressed group narrative butting up against another and fighting for space.
I don't mean to pick on you, because I basically agree with your viewpoint, but "I don't think either of you have the capacity to understand the level of sheer cynicism I am operating on here" really does sound like the next "I, for one, don't own a television". You lads come out with really wonderful turns of phrase, sometimes.
>>42781 You did mention "prevailing liberal ideology", even though it is in no way exclusively left-wing. I remember a 4chan thread about Premier League teams all putting Pride flags on their Twitter profile pictures, and their many thousands of Indonesian and laplanderstani fans were leaving hundreds of comments that homosexuality is haram and they were all angrily declaring that they were now leaving the MANCHESTER UNITED FANS - JALALABAD Facebook group and whatever else. It was hilarious and I really enjoyed the thread. But should 4chan join the third-world customers and oppose Pride, or should they side with globohomo and laugh at the smelly unabummer cavemen? It was exactly the same cognitive dissonance you're pointing to here. (As it happens, /sp/ sided with Pride against the eskimos, if you're curious).
In that instance, I don't imagine 4chan needing to pick a side, as they stand for nothing and are perfectly capable of laughing at both. But in oldfag times, I think that would have been one of the times where they could see through the bullshit and recognise it as big money hypocritically pandering to different markets in different ways.
Remember when they banned the LGBT hats from the world cup, and then they banned those guys dressed as Medieval crusaders too? You get moments like that where two seemingly diametrically opposed groups share a common cause, and we could latch onto them to expose all the divisive polarising nonsense for what it is.
