Women in shorts cause car to “crash” into pole

[dipsydoodle]

Obviously from the past. :



http://www.retronaut.com/2013/03/women-in-shorts-cause-car-to-crash-into-pole/?fb_action_ids=10151570069393594&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%2210151570069393594%22%3A473656669368763}&action_type_map={%2210151570069393594%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]

[peace13]

1. To wear socks or not to wear socks....

that is the question. Good picture. Thanks.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Socks look great with Mary Janes

[Melon_Lord]

2. Almost happened to me the other day...

Except it was a low cut halter top I believe...

[southernyankeebelle]

9. Watch out then you would have gotten the ticket. Your fault.

[Melon_Lord]

23. Worth it...

[southernyankeebelle]

45. LOL

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Sue Ellen Mischke? nt

[Brickbat]

5. Running the gauntlet.

My heart sinks just looking at that photo.

[pintobean]

7. High school girls?

That would be 13-18 year old girls.

[backtoblue]

12. disgusting.

At Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:24 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

This happens to me at least once a week
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2506022

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

New poster talking about ogling high school girls. He must have the wrong site.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:28 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Can't deny biology. Post is harmless. Alerter should get a life.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The new poster might have forgotten to use the dripping sarcasm icon.

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: "cute high school girls" - are underage. go somewhere else, perv.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[pintobean]

14. I didn't bother alerting

I figured it wouldn't get hidden. Sad.

[geek tragedy]

15. Jury results:(only 2 votes to hide)

Not really going to fight it. This is what DU is. People either have to learn to deal with the creepy man/wannabe sexual predator factor, or find somewhere without such people.

[geek tragedy]

16. Gotta love DU3 --those of us who object to men publicly lusting after children

here need to "get a life" because that stuff is "harmless" and "biology."

The fight over sexism is over--they won.

[sufrommich]

17. Yep, its Reddit with liberal leanings.

Even pedophiles are given a wink and a nod.

[geek tragedy]

22. Yep. It's still worth calling the male entitlement mentality out

when we come across it here, but that's clearly the dominant community ethos.

I'm sure that creepy juror #2, when he's not masturbating to pictures of high school girls, would chastise us for being "sex-negative."

[Sheldon Cooper]

36. Results of the jury:

At Thu Mar 14, 2013, 11:06 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yep. It's still worth calling the male entitlement mentality out
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2506167

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

geek is very over the top. \"when he\'s not masturbating to pictures of high school girls, would chastise us for being \"sex-negative.\" Geek continued postsseems to be more obsessed than just the norm


You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 14, 2013, 11:09 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: When the people who decry sexism never hesitate to use sexism in their decrying, they have no validity.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: When real sexism get's noticed on the board I'll be more inclined to hide. At this point Geek gets a pass.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I was #3 or #6. Sexism here is A-OK, but calling it out gets put up for a vote among the "liberals" on the left. Disgusting.

[msanthrope]

43. You take #3, I'll take #6. nt

[geek tragedy]

46. Yep. It's a bigger crime to object to sexual predation

and lusting after children than it is to actually lust after children here.

And, the juror who accused me of sexism wouldn't recognize sexism if he tripped over it.

[Whisp]

66. I hope Skinner realises that the jury system

sucks donkey ass just as much as Meta did.

This is the result. Pedophilia is okay.

Let's see how much more disgusting we can get.

[geek tragedy]

68. Jury system exists to make the site less work to administer.

It doesn't exist because of its own merits.

I imagine Violentacrez from Reddit has registered here by now.

[seabeyond]

88. ah...

a thread on a pastry. throw in vagina and a thread of men mouthing off crude and vulgar about the womans body for a little laugh.

[Whisp]

94. some of them will never 'get it', and that is pretty sad.

Fortunately there are so many good men here. The ones that say what they try to do is be 'good people' (I forgot who said that but it just nailed it all) and trying to define what being a 'man' is just plain complicated and stupid. Just try to be good people.

Of course he said it a lot better than I just did.

Why are some so afraid of us women? I guess that is what they were taught by their parents, their peers, their churches. Hell, practically everything out there has some teachings on the evilness and limited uses of women.

[chervilant]

181. Pedophilia,

Sexism, Misogyny ...

AND, belittling or deriding anyone who attempts to address it.

(I left du for a while because of this, but have since decided to continue to advocate for DUers to stop objectifying and disrespecting women.)

[redqueen]

185. Thank you for coming back. :)

Skinner has says the way to handle these things is not to hide them but to educate.

So we need more than the 'five or six' people whom too many DUers find so easy to mock, ridicule and ignore when it comes to these issues. (In truth it is way more than five or six, but since we are clearly outnumbered, the propaganda works.)

[backtoblue]

21. i was number 6

i'm absolutely disgusted. the poster should be immediately ppr'd for stating he/she likes to get off looking at underage girls. this is going too far.

unless they are underage themselves (which, i think you're supposed to be over 18 to post here right? ) this might be my last straw here.

[geek tragedy]

24. I wish I could say I was surprised.

But, this site has become a safe haven for this type of creep--see juror comment #2.

I can trace it to when at least two men talked about how they've committed rapes in the past, and got pats on the back instead of PPRs.

What rape culture?

[pintobean]

25. At least 13 years old

is what one checks when signing up at DU. You can click "My Account" at the top of any page to see it. I doubt that the poster is under 18, though. It's creepy.

[Buzz Clik]

32. You need to get a grip on reality.

ppr'd?

unless they are underage themselves (which, i think you're supposed to be over 18 to post here right? ) this might be my last straw here.

Damn. Just damn.

What if he had said he saw some high schoolers with short skirt and plunging necklines -- and they looked like whores? THAT might have gotten the post hidden and THAT might have gotten him ppr'd.

Ridiculous.

[geek tragedy]

47. yeah, defend pedohphilia and wannabe statutory rapists! nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

124. This kind of over the top shit just makes you sound deranged.

[geek tragedy]

130. I'm flattered at the attention you've taken in me on a personal level

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2496304

but would kindly request that you not reply to me with nothing but repeated personal attacks, as that's kind of stalkerish.

Thank you for complying.

[Sheldon Cooper]

132. Wow - the only thing he didn't mention in that post is that

you're just making nice with the feminists in hopes of getting laid. That seems to be a common response to male allies.

[geek tragedy]

134. Who knows what they say in PMs. They call me stuff like

the "little chihuahua" of the feminists here in comments though.

Essentially haven't risen beyond schoolyard taunts, which makes sense given the overall tenor of their remarks.

[Sheldon Cooper]

137. The Spanky and Alfalfa crowd will eventually be replaced with men who

don't see the need to live up to a hypermasculine stereotype in order to feel like men.

[geek tragedy]

139. I don't take them to be 'hypermasculine'

so much as uninformed and rather provincial in their outlook. If anything, not quite developed enough to address these issues head on with maturity.

[redqueen]

140. Aw, it's cute how they use their macho culture bullshit to try to insult.

Chihuahua, get it? Cause the're small? And non threatening? And macho men are big and threatening!

Such rank fucking idiocy.

[geek tragedy]

141. Same ones who complain when other men don't take their

claims of victimhood seriously.

"But I have to work for a living and be a father to my children and ask women out on dates."

[Comrade Grumpy]

163. You're welcome. I call 'em like I sees 'em.

[In_The_Wind]

162. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Thu Mar 14, 2013, 04:26 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You need to get a grip on reality.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2506286

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

What the fuck is wrong with this guy? Over the top rude and inappropriate

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 14, 2013, 04:44 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Childish bickering on DU?!!? Just let it run out on its own steam.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: leave it. lighten up.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Rex]

147. PPR'D for being a previously banned troll.

At least someone is paying attention.

[backtoblue]

156. you're right.

at least they were outed before more shit was stirred. what the ppr'd poster said was an obvious attempt to get a reaction and it did. a sensitive subject that i'm naively surprised was actually defended by some posters.

i'm afraid some damage has been done, though. everyone who had their say in the "debate" will now be labeled and divided. divide and conquer is a strong tactic and i think trolls such as this one know exactly what they're doing. i can't help but speak up for what i believe in, though, as much as i'd like to deny such trolls such attention. i don't need middle ground, just equal footing...

[Buzz Clik]

31. OMFG. The inconsistency is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2506247

I'm really curious how one somehow justifies a "child" "exploring her sexuality" yet being revulsed when a male acts exactly how you would predict: he looks at her.

[geek tragedy]

34. Adult men lusting after children is creepy and indicative

of a potential sexual predator.

And I don't recall anyone saying that underage high school girls wearing sexually provocative clothing is something to be encouraged, except for creepy old perverts and sexual predators.

So, yeah, if you think pedophilia is within DU standards and that statutory rape law should be outlawed, defend that shit.

[Buzz Clik]

38. Really? All the way from just looking to pedophilia in one post?

Incredible.

I guess I'm just not all in with DU's ability to go completely insane over absolutely NOTHING.

By the way, accusing that poster of pedophilia is truly disgusting -- you should be ashamed and apologize immediately.

[geek tragedy]

48. Lusting after children and

actively posting at DU about how they lust after children is reprehensible.


People can take that shit to 4chan.

No apology forthcoming. Go ahead and alert.

[redqueen]

90. "just looking"?

Yeah, no.

There's "just looking" at a nice car. There's "just looking" at a menu posted outside a restaurant. There's "just looking" at the message or picture on a t-shirt.

There's a certain way of "just looking" at AN UNDERAGE GIRL'S body (cleavage, rear end, legs, whatever) that is far, far away from "just looking" in a general sense.

As you and everyone else over the age of 18 on this planet well knows.

[Buzz Clik]

95. What you say is absolutely true.

It's simply irrelevant here.

Did you read the post in question before it was removed? Can you quote the part where he was looking at and underage girl's body in that "certain way"? Or, is this just an extrapolation on your part?

Having run into you multiple times before in these discussions, perhaps you are willing to address the only point I'm trying to make: It is completely inconsistent to encourage young girls to dress in sexually aggressive manner and then complain when the way they dress causes someone to say, "I noticed the way you were dressed." Anything?

[redqueen]

104. Noticing something and expressing that the type of 'noticing' you were doing was distracting enough

to crash into a car?

Come on, really?

This is the kind of word lawyering nonsense that no one but those who are as desperate to remain in denial would buy into.

If I, as a feminist, discuss girls dressing in ever more pornified ways, that's one thing. I'm 'noticing' the way they are dressed, but in a certain specific way.

If a man says that the situation that's been staged in this photo happens to him once a week (i.e. leering at underage girls to the point that he's risking the safety of himself and those around him), then that's quite a different thing. It's the kind of 'noticing' that any rational person labels as sick, twisted, and an example of 'ephebophilia' since the men who refuse to check their entitlement don't appreciate being labeled as pedophiles. As if it made that much difference.

[Buzz Clik]

113. The trends in this thread are, if nothing else, consistent.

1) I cannot get anyone who responds to me to comment on the inconsistency I illustrated; and

2) The assumption is automatic that the now-banned poster actually crashed his car in the throes of sexual stimulation.

So let's back this up just a bit to allow you to address my point. Let's assume that the now-banned piggy had limited himself to saying only this: "I sometimes see high school girls dressed in a sexually aggressive manner that I find distracting." And, let's assume that there is no connotation whatsoever of the poster lusting after these girls. (That's actually the way I read the post when I first saw it.) Would you find the post objectionable?

[redqueen]

116. Um, no.

No one has assumed that he actually crashed his car.

This isn't really all that complicated.

The picture portrays a very clear scenario. He said it (or, as any reasonable person infers, something similar, but not exactly a car crash) happens to him on a weekly basis. In the context of leering at high school girls.

I'm not interested in your hypothetically word-smithing his statement to make it skirt a little closer to being more tolerable to non-sicko pervert predators. Thanks, though.

And, 'sexually aggressive'? How the hell is dressing in the pornified manner which society has normalized in any way being 'aggressive'?

No, they're not dressing in an 'aggressive' manner. They're dressing in a pornified manner.

[Buzz Clik]

119. Sexually aggressive.

And, 'sexually aggressive'? How the hell is dressing in the pornified manner which society has normalized in any way being 'aggressive'?

Not my words. I am quoting verbatim from multiple threads here at DU. It's a frequent response when someone infers a woman or girl is "whorish" in her attire or if a woman's attire is used as an excuse for sexual assault/rape. I do NOT condone calling a woman or girl a whore for the way she dresses, nor do I tolerate a woman's attire as an excuse for hideous behavior. (I also don't call the current fashions "pornified&quot .

I guess I asked the wrong person.

[seabeyond]

126. i have never, once, seen the word sexually aggressive used to imply whorish. you make the claim?

back it up

[geek tragedy]

145. Funny how when a grown man leers at an underage girl,

she's the one who's being characterized as "aggressive" and the creep ogling her just doing what's biologically natural for a man who is not dead.

[seabeyond]

151. oh geez, so true. isnt it. consistent. and ALL the fuckin' time. repeat and rinse again.

little girls..... and a grown man cant help himself.

[Warren DeMontague]

196. how old are the people in that picture? I mean, when the picture was taken. Do you know?

Also, as for being dead, it's entirely likely that EVERYONE in those shots is dead by now, including the horse.

[geek tragedy]

204. This discussion is about the creep xilify who upthread talked about how

at least once a week he almost crashes his car because he is ogling "cute high school girls" in "short skirts and booty shorts."

[Warren DeMontague]

205. oh, you mean where "repeat disruptor" wrote "message auto-removed"?

Yes, I agree that it's good that fully 85% of this thread is focused on that problem.

[geek tragedy]

206. Jury voted 2-4 to leave alone and he had a very vocal defender. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

207. THANK GOD they got rid of meta, though, right?

HAPPY DANCE!

[pacalo]

208. "Happy dance, happy dance!1!" "Thanks, Skinner!1!"

I think what we've been witnessing these past few days is the 12-step program in progress...

...'cause that happiness just isn't coming through for me, either.

[Warren DeMontague]

209. sobriety goes much better with a few beers.

worrrrkin the program, oh yeah.

[pacalo]

212. Confession...

I'm kind of missing the pingpong games & the frogger-game aspect of it.

[LittleBlue]

98. Just wait until you see the next generation

Long story short, I went home to see my family during the holidays. One thing we do together a lot is watch TV dramas, it's a sibling tradition. My youngest sister is 14, and she showed me some of the teen shows she watched. This isn't Spongebob anymore.

One was about a high school girl sleeping with her teacher. This wasn't presented as pervy, the two were in "love". They met in a bar, and it's presented as a romantic relationship where they have to sneak around to avoid "annoying" parents getting in the way of Romeo and Juliet. A different show has one of the girls sleeping with her much older dance teacher. Both of these shows are on ABC Family.

It was a bit shocking to see a family channel broadcasting shows where men in their late 20s/early 30s are sleeping with sophomores and juniors. Don't be surprised when the next generation forms similar opinions.

[geek tragedy]

101. That crap has been around forever.

ABC family has some pretty raunchy stuff.

[Buzz Clik]

30. Just one goddamned minute!

We are reminded over and over again that young women (and that most definitely includes high school "girls&quot should be absolutely free to wear whatever level of revealing clothing they want because they are "exploring their sexuality" and being "sexually assertive." But the simple act of just acknowledging that these young women are dressed like that is disgusting? Worthy of alert?

BULLSHIT!

Thumbs up to the jury for getting this 100% correct.

[geek tragedy]

37. No one but creepy sexual predators has said it's okay

to publicly express lust for children here.

Just like no one but creepy old perverts have said that we should encourage underage girls to dress in sexually provocative ways.

But hey, if you want high school girls to dress up according to your pornographic fantasies, you're the majority voice here.

[Buzz Clik]

40. Okay. I thought this would come:

Just like no one but creepy old perverts have said that we should encourage underage girls to dress in sexually provocative ways.

Do you never read anything in any of the feminist forums at DU? Justifying even young girls from dressing in a "sexually assertive" way because they are merely "exploring their sexuality" is posted every day.

Want to try this out? Post the picture in the OP on one of those forums and tell the audience that the picture demonstrates that even back then girls were dressing like whores. Give it a shot.

(By the way, you have no way of knowing how old the women in the OP's pic are. They could be 14 years old.)

[seabeyond]

44. you miss much of the point.

yes, they are exploring sexuality. that is understanding the very bottom line in our youth growing, just as we do with our boys in certain behavior.

BUT... we also discuss the reasons, how it is not particularly healthy, the unfortunate repercussion of a pornifide society. we take it so beyond where you are capable. so your point absolutely stops short.

one of the issues would be the adult male world playing in the childs sexual journey.

[geek tragedy]

49. This isn't about that picture.

It's about a poster talking about how they lust after the bodies of underage children.

That's what you're defending.

Statutory rape laws exist to protect children against creeps like that.

[Buzz Clik]

59. I'm shutting down the stereophonic approach.

I'm tired of the repetition. Let's limit our conversation to one subthread.

[pintobean]

157. There's some history with

this one. There's more stuff like this in the archives.

[geek tragedy]

161. Ick. nt

[chervilant]

189. That explains some things. n/t

[backtoblue]

63. So you agree that lusting after underage girls is ok? You can cuss me all you want.

You can even get angry at me. Still doesn't change the fact that girls in high school are still underage and illegal to engage in sexual relations with.

[Buzz Clik]

64. Just stop.

If you can put up a quote of mine that I said that "lusting after underage girls is ok", I will apologize and delete the text.

If you cannot, then I suggest you quit the bullshitting.

[geek tragedy]

80. After that creep talked about how he ogled high school girls,

someone asked him what's his problem, and you responded:

He's not dead?

Granted, he showed questionable judgment posting an honest reaction at DU. The collective gasping and outrage is laughable, but a real pain in the ass when you're the target.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022505918#post35


Very clearly, you saw nothing wrong with someone talking about how ogled high school girls here. The "he's not dead" part seems to indicate you think that it's natural for men to ogle high school girls.

That is where you are coming from. Which is creepy.

[Buzz Clik]

84. I am not interested in hearing your reaction to a comment directed to someone else.

As I stated before, one subthread is plenty for our discussion.

[backtoblue]

159. let's play nice

i don't understand your point of view on this issue. sorry that we don't see things the same way, but I don't feel like i'm in any way a bullshitter. rather straightforward, actually.

maybe one day we can learn to open our minds to each other's point of views and have somewhat of an understanding as to what other's are trying to say.

arguing isn't going to change either of our minds, so i'm gonna call it a day.


peace

[chervilant]

180. Boys will be boys ...

Doncha know?



(Jic)

[geek tragedy]

8. Creepy. nt

[Brickbat]

10. What the hell is your problem?

[Buzz Clik]

35. He's not dead?

Granted, he showed questionable judgment posting an honest reaction at DU. The collective gasping and outrage is laughable, but a real pain in the ass when you're the target.

[geek tragedy]

50. Honestly expressing the impulse to be a statutory rapist

is not something to be encouraged around here.

[Buzz Clik]

58. He said that?

What part of his post said that he wanted to have sex with the girls that he saw? Please be very specific and quote the words he said.

[geek tragedy]

60. Yeah, when people express lust for other people's bodies, they

are totally not expressing a desire to have sex with that person.

Sexually objectifying underage girls has no place here. None. Skinner bounced the creep.

It's really not an unfair burden to avoid sexually objectifying underage children here.

[Buzz Clik]

62. So, you won't do it? You will not point out the words he used...

... that so clearly expressed his desire for sex with children?

[geek tragedy]

67. Post has been deleted since the creep was vaporized by Skinner.

He was expressing his sexual attraction to high school girls.

It's silly to pretend that "wow that high school girl looks hot in that short skirt" doesn't imply a desire to have sex with that high school girl.

By your standards, men could talk about how sexy they find Honey Boo Boo and how they like watching Toddlers and Tiaras.


Tell us--do you think men should be allowed to post pictures of 13 year olds in swimsuits and talk about how hot they look here, in the DU Lounge?

[Buzz Clik]

74. His post was basically this:

"It happened to me last week. Cute high school girls in booty shorts and mini skirts. It should be illegal."

It's silly to pretend that "wow that high school girl looks hot in that short skirt" doesn't imply a desire to have sex with that high school girl.

True, but he didn't say that.

By your standards, men could talk about how sexy they find Honey Boo Boo and how they like watching Toddlers and Tiaras.

My standards? When did I start showing lust for children? My point in posting here has been pretty simple: going insane over someone commenting the he saw some high school girls in short skirts while declaring that the girls dressed like that are "being sexually aggressive" is completely inconsistent. That's it. I won't be dragged into some tangential discussion.

[geek tragedy]

75. Yeah, when that creep was ogling high school girls in "short skirts

and booty shorts" sex was totally not on his mind.

You are defending a guy who talked about how he couldn't help but stare at high school girls.

Why would you not defend a guy who saying something like "I almost crashed my car when I saw a cute little 9-year old in a short skirt" or "I get distracted when I see these five year olds running around in their tight, revealing outfits?"

[Buzz Clik]

78. More extrapolation, more tangential discussion.

I stand by my point.

If you cannot comment on my point, then we're done here.

[geek tragedy]

79. You were defending a creep who was talking about

how he got distracted because he was ogling high school girls.

And you were scolding those of us who objected to the idea that men should be able to talk about how they like ogling high school girls.

[Buzz Clik]

81. Ogling high school girls is hardly equivalent to pedophilia.

On this thread, both he and I were accused of being pedophiles.

Back to my point: If you support the notion of high school girls (or younger) dressing in a sexually assertive way, then complaining about people talking about the way they dress is inconsistent.

That's it. Nothing more. Your refusal to address my point makes me assume that you cannot refute it.

[geek tragedy]

85. Where did I support the idea of high school girls

dressing in sexually provocative ways?

Bzzt.

Don't express sexual attraction to girls under the age of consent. Really not a hard rule to follow for non-creepy men.

It's not natural, and those of us who are not dead manage to do it. Because we're not creeps.

[Buzz Clik]

86. It's the only point I've been arguing.

Jesus fucking Christ!!

If you didn't want to discuss my point, why the hell did you respond to me at all?

Don't express sexual attraction to girls under the age of consent.

You falsely accuse me of this shit one more time, and we kick up to another level.

[geek tragedy]

89. You're the one who jumped into this thread to defend the guy.

and explained his ogling of high school girls as being due to the fact that "he's not dead."

I don't know what your proclivities are, but it is clear what you think should be allowed here--and that is to turn this place into Reddit or 4chan where sexual predators feel perfectly at home.

The fact is that people who are willing to talk about how they ogle high school girls on a political discussion board have problems.

[Buzz Clik]

91. Actually, your ability to understand one word I've written is pretty close to zero.

I'm no longer worried about communicating with you.

[geek tragedy]

93. No, the problem is that I saw exactly through what you were

saying.

Your "he's not dead" explanation made in defense of his ogling of high school girls "at least once a week" is not difficult to interpret.

[pintobean]

87. No, the subject line was

"This happens to me at least once a week"

It was repeated behavior, fully knowing they were HS girls. It's perverted.

[Buzz Clik]

99. And he was booted. Probably justified based on other posts in other threads.

You didn't like it, but the jury voted to keep his post here.

[pintobean]

108. Were you on the jury?

It seems you showed up to defend the jury and the post. I'm guessing Geek checked the TOS box and that caused admin to take a look at it. Admin removed the post.
I searched his posts, and the only other problem post I saw was the one I linked to up-thread.

[geek tragedy]

110. Yes, I did check the TOS box. Tombstone says he was a previously banned troll. nt

[Whisp]

123. so a perv slobbering over young girls is okay with you.

we got that.

and if he didn't react in this perverted disgusting way, then his man parts are dead and he as a man, is dead because that is the measure of a man is to react sexually over anything female no matter what age.

yep, got that too.

you should stop digging.

[Buzz Clik]

125. I said that? Where?

Provide the quote, and I'll delete the text I posted.

If you can't provide the quote, then STFU and apologize.

[seabeyond]

129. it is there for all to read buzz. whisp about said it the way it is. see how foolish that post of

your sounded to the rest of us?

[Whisp]

146. this is a pretty good example of that 'herd' thing, isn't it?

I am sure he knows he was in the wrong and went in too far, but instead of either leaving the conversation or finally realizing what he said was pretty awful, he dug in deeper for fear the herd would reject him.

that's pretty sad. because if we are unable to see where we go wrong sometimes, and apologize, then we don't really learn anything new. I've been such a dumbass so many times and will forever be a dumbass in a lot more things I don't even know about yet. But somehow along the way some light bulb goes off and I realize that, man, I was so wrong! And apologizing is liberating. It feels good.

And what I learn sometimes takes me a long long long time to 'get', I pass onto my kid, and she starts off a little higher on the Dumbass pole and avoids to have to make some apologizes.

[seabeyond]

152. throw in warrens dismissal with a thread of hair on fire wimminz and men. clever enough not

to defend the indefensible but throwing a life buoy. lol. to buzz, putting ALL of us in our place or petty and silly conversation. probably to the point of hysteria.

jumping up and down, look at me, over here. lol

[Warren DeMontague]

184. "clever enough not to defend"... what? to not defend "message auto-removed"?

Oh, I'm sorry: Why don't you tell me exactly how much indignation I am expected to express over "message auto-removed", and the level of moral exhortation I am supposed to convey, at this point, to "previously banned disruptor".

[Whisp]

131. what did you mean then?

We are all ears. Please educate us what you meant by that 'dead' thing you did.

[Buzz Clik]

133. Take off.

You make a hideous inference without justification and then want me to explain a simple comment to you word-for-word?

You owe me an apology.

[Whisp]

135. I apologize that I embarrassed the shit out of you. n/t

[geek tragedy]

136. No need to apologize. You didn't embarrass him.

He embarrassed himself.

[Whisp]

138. I didn't really apologize. Just worded it a bit wrongly, but I'll leave it. n/t

[geek tragedy]

144. I got where you were going--was playing along.

nudge nudge wink wink

[Buzz Clik]

142. How mature. Are we back on the playground?

You intentionally misrepresented my words and twisted them into a hideous implication. I don't find it funny or cute.

[Whisp]

148. then what Did you mean?

I already asked that and if you explain, maybe you will get a real apology for misunderstanding you.

[JTFrog]

154. For the record:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Thu Mar 14, 2013, 03:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I apologize that I embarrassed the shit out of you. n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2507894

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

hurtful and rude

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 14, 2013, 03:27 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: That poster needed to be called out on his bullshit. Well done Whisp.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This isn't hurtful and rude. The other poster told her to STFU. That is hurtful and rude.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Rude. You're the one that should be embarrassed!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: At this point in the thread *play ball*

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Whisp]

155. thanks, JT, and thanks jurors. n/t

[LittleBlue]

149. ...

[Whisp]

11. oiy...

[Buzz Clik]

33. I'm really curious to hear your reaction to the shit storm you created.

My replies should pretty well establish where I stand.

[pintobean]

39. Maybe something brilliant

like this.

[Buzz Clik]

41. Okay. So he's a pig.

A juvenile pig at that.

The post in THIS thread, however, was totally harmless. It was the amazing extrapolation from "girl watcher" to "pedophile" that has me stunned.

[seabeyond]

42. MIR Team (Skinner) banned xilify

MIR Team (Skinner) banned xilify

Reason:
Previously banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com?com=profile&uid=300569&sub=trans

Real name:
DU Member for: 1 months, 7 days
Posts: 17
Recommendations: 3
Star member: No


some people get it. too many do not

[geek tragedy]

51. And some people manage to out themselves in the process. nt

[seabeyond]

52. when only listening to your buddies continually reinforce it is nature, biology, to get off on girls

evo psychology tells men so. see, it is science. and that is the only small circle you listen to, and nothing else penetrates thought, yes... the obvious is there for all of us as we listen.

they think it is a norm and the rest of us are saying....

eeeeew.

[geek tragedy]

54. Biology is their excuse.

I mean, what red-blooded heterosexual American man doesn't see a 15 year old in a skirt and get a boner?

But we're the ones with the problem.

Statutory rape laws don't exist exclusively because of conservative men.

[XRubicon]

192. lol

[XRubicon]

191. lol

[pintobean]

13. It appears to have been staged

http://lost-toronto.blogspot.com/2011_08_21_archive.html

Eta - cool pic, though. Thanks for sharing.

[dipsydoodle]

18. Good find

Sherlock.

Best wishes Watson.

[pintobean]

20. I love that they're holding hands.

[dipsydoodle]

27. Because I'm used to seeing girls holding hands

I didn't notice that at all. Dancers tend to do that out of affection with no other connotation.

[polly7]

178. Yes, women and girls used to hold hands all the time.

My girlfriends and I did it in high-school, we'd grab hands and run or skip just because we were happy ..... stoned lol.

I see elderly women doing it more often than not .... it's sweet, they're guiding one another.

[HereSince1628]

19. Are you sure it wasn't the public display of same-sex affection?

They WERE PHOTOGRAPHED actually HOLDING HANDS IN PUBLIC!!!!!!!!!

[dipsydoodle]

26. That hadn't occurred to me

but I guess it could be two blokes.

[TeeYiYi]

65. Actually...

...that's EXACTLY what I think it is.

Take a close look at the person wearing the suit, perfectly framed between the 'V' of their arms as they hold hands. It's definitely a woman dressed to look like a man. I love this photo. Very daring for the time.

TYY

[HiPointDem]

127. no, as another poster noted, it was common for young women to hold hands or walk arm in arm

in public in earlier eras.

didn't imply a romantic or sexual relationship.

[Renew Deal]

28. You forgot "Breaking"

[NaturalHigh]

29. Dang them wimmin!

[Fumesucker]

53. There's no way that car "crashed into" that pole

The bumper isn't even slightly bent, look at the reflections in it.

[dipsydoodle]

55. See post 13.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022505918#post13

Both pictures must've come about at the same time I guess - one isn't a "photoshop" of the other.

[seabeyond]

56. now and then. now, we photoshop to have a group of men blocking way, and intimidating

in their objectifying of the women.

where the original photo was two women walking down the street.

the difference of our oh so progressive pornification of women. an innocent photo had to be made into not... by some man, to put the women in their place and empower the male gender. cause they just do not have enough empowerment as it is.

yea....

[dipsydoodle]

57. Its not a photoshop

They are two different pictures taken at the same time, check the leg positions , although I had no knowledge of the first one before I posted what I guess might've been the first.

It was reply #13 which picked up on that.

If you wonder where I found it in the first place most of my FB friends are either dancers or musicians heavily into retro stuff including the way they dress themselves - me too.

Limited edition DM's now sold out

[Lars39]

61. You might appreciate these vids then...

Sam Morgan's Jazz Band - Short Dress Gal (1927) (lyrics start after the 1 minute mark)

And then another version
Carolina Chocolate Drops and Luminescent Orchestrii: "Short Dress Gal"

[dipsydoodle]

70. Much appreciated

That's both videos cos I'm into American Old Time Traditional too - partly explains how come I've got 80 or so 5 string banjos.

The Chocolate Drops are good - they seconded the name from older bands :

There was another early '30's band whose exact name escapes me - got a CD somewhere or other. Was one of those bands whose lineup changed according to who showed up.

On the subject of jazz and swing music we've still got DJs in London who only play 78 rpm originals for us to dance to. Some of that stuff was never been moved onto vinyl let alone subsequently to CDs.

[Lars39]

73. Didn't realize that about their name.

Very cool. Totally envious about access to the old songs over the radio.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Car Crash??? They're causing a FULL SCALE DU MELTDOWN!!!!

[Comrade Grumpy]

71. Some people seem to be permanently in that state.

Their world must be a very horrifying place, full of monsters.

[dipsydoodle]

72. Well at least now

it don't get duplicated in the Chardonnay Forum aka Meta.

[Warren DeMontague]

115. Some people simply can't contain their ecstasy over it being gone

they literally don't know what to do with themselves.

...You know, because they're so ecstatic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

150. Prepare to run the gauntlet.

[seabeyond]

153. i think that is more apt with what the women are doing in that picture. but hey... if yawl want

to be the victim, step right up

[Warren DeMontague]

158. I'm sorry, maybe you can give me the cliffs notes version of the outrage.

what's on the menu, today?

[Whisp]

160. why are you so afraid of sea?

It's almost entertaining, except for the annoying part.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. I'm afraid of sea?

Or I'm afraid of the sea?

Maybe it's yon Kraken. Scary shit.



if you're talking about seabeyond, I'm not sure how you get that I'm "afraid" of her. I don't have her -or anyone- on ignore, which seems to me the mark of the true chicken.

[pintobean]

168. Would that make you

chicken of the sea?


Sorry, Charlie.

[seabeyond]

166. what does your post have ANYTHING to do with my reply to lumber? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

169. I want to know more about the pornification photoshop conspiracy you mention upthread.

sounds nefarious.

[dipsydoodle]

170. Reference to photoshopping didn't account for there being two different pictures.

Which is obviously not a photoshop of the picture with the guys where the leg positions differ.



Yes I would say it was staged for a magazine.

[seabeyond]

179. so, your post had nothing to do with my reply to lumder. gotcha. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

183. wait.. you're suggesting that I replied to you in a somewhat non-linear fashion?

....that's funny.

[Beacool]

195. I seem to have missed all the fun.

[Warren DeMontague]

197. it's astounding. "message auto-removed" is causing quite the stir.

Whatever it doesn't say, it's pretty bad.

[Beacool]

199. Apparently so..............

[HappyMe]

76. It definitely looks staged.

I wonder if it was a photo for a magazine article or something.

[ismnotwasm]

77. Oh my GOD

They're holding hands.



Clearly not 'interested' in those fucked up leering guys. I bet one of those women is thinking 'put your tongue back in your mouth; you're about to make me puke you goony looking motherfucker'

Ugh.
Edit both of those women are thinking that. Double ugh.

Edit again, whoops never mind

[HappyMe]

82. I think back in the day it was

pretty common for women to hold hands or walk arm in arm. My grandma and her sister used to walk arm in arm all the time.

[ismnotwasm]

92. I was being slightly sarcastic

Except for the thought comment.

Young women from Korea also hold hands to this day, and are mortified when they find out Americans make the assumption they gay.

Ah, assumptions.

[HappyMe]

100. Oh, okay.

Whooshed right over my head.

I saw older and younger women in Chinatown in NYC walking hand in hand. I didn't think twice about it.

[ismnotwasm]

102. I don't think that way either

But I worked with women who are immigrants and have heard their stories.


It's a sweet sign of affection that is really no ones business.

[Whisp]

96. goony looking motherfucker... lol.

thing is tho, in scenarios like this the guys probably don't much care what the women think of them. they are doing this to prove to the others in the herd that they 'belong' and don't care what the women think. Infact, I think they would be more pleased if a woman called them out as goony looking motherfuckers. They'd all group up and either laugh, or have violent thoughts about them.

[seabeyond]

103. prove to the others in the herd that they 'belong' and don't care what the women think.

yes. little boys that need their peer approval. lol

that is exactly what group male mentality is all about. AND they will even say it is and how hAAAAAAArd it is not to be that.

[redqueen]

106. Excellent, excellent point. It is a power play. nt

[ismnotwasm]

112. Actually if I want to analyze

The whole picture is shot weird. The virginal pristine white shorts against the dirty, rough clothing of the working men. The disrespectful leers (remember, this would have been considered 'indecent' clothing) The Hansel and Gretal hand holding, indicative of support or fear. Or youth. The clothing of the women (tennis outfits?) indicating higher social class. It looks as though, rather than 'causing' a car crash they crashed in the wrong neighborhood and are walking into sexual violence.

The violence of the crash. It's a psychologically loaded picture alright. The women are being mocked, not admired. Owned. Dependent. Frightened.

It's a classist, sexist photo, one that paints working men as buffoons and the women as delicate flowers. All they need is a 'white knight' character and it would complete the profile, but that's not the intent of the photo.

[Whisp]

114. and that 'feet of clay' thing that society gives men to enjoy having

and women usually excluded from.

You know, men are so weak against their sexual desires they do some pretty stupid stuff when it comes to women, they can't help it! That would explain that car crash thing.

[ismnotwasm]

117. Excellent point.

Which is why


They really ARE goony looking motherfuckers.

[Whisp]

118. That picture speaks in two different languages, one for men and one for women.

Women have been conditioned to look a bit deeper into things that may look simple on the outside in respect between relationships of men and women and how the world works differently for men than for women, and vice versa.

We weren't able to speak out loud and freely like men been able to do forever, so another way has been devised. To study. We have a lifetime and generations of learning what those subtle signals are, we know a different language of the world and finally are able to speak out what generations have known.

[ismnotwasm]

120. That it does

Lets see, 1937, the year marijuana became illegal or thereabouts. We were between wars, 'Rosie the Riviter' didn't exist.

Ok, (I'm looking stuff up) we were in the middle of a recession and couldn't possible have recovered from the depression at least psychologically--in fact psychologically we never did.

I'm still struck by the classism undertones of the photo, using women, to say, what? It's never one thing, always some sort of moral or economic imperative using women's bodies and the male gaze.

[Summer Hathaway]

202. And you can discern all of that

from a decades-old photograph? That's amazing!

"The virginal pristine white shorts against the dirty, rough clothing of the working men." Or just two women wearing white on a spring day, walking past on-the-job men in working clothes that were the everyday norm at the time.

"The disrespectful leers ...". Looks like appreciative smiles to me.

"The Hansel and Gretal hand holding, indicative of support or fear." Or two women holding hands as they strolled down the street, which was completely normal at the time - a display of friendship between two friends, having nothing to do with fear, mutual support, or fairy tales.

"The clothing of the women (tennis outfits?) indicating higher social class." Or two young ladies wearing the latest fashion craze - like mini-skirts or go-go boots.

" It looks as though, rather than 'causing' a car crash they crashed in the wrong neighborhood and are walking into sexual violence." Looks as though two young women are walking down the street together - and there was no 'car crash', as can plainly be seen by the undamaged car.

"The violence of the crash. It's a psychologically loaded picture alright. The women are being mocked, not admired. Owned. Dependent. Frightened." Again, the 'crash' that clearly never happened. Where are the women being mocked? How is this a 'psychologically- loaded' picture? The faces of the men clearly show appreciation - not mockery, nor 'leering'. And how you get 'owned, dependent and frightened' from an innocuous photo - especially one that doesn't even show the women's faces and their true reaction, is mind-boggling.

Have you ever participated in a Rorschach test? Somehow I think that every ink-blot would represent leering men lusting after virginal, dependent, frightened women.

Yet another post that makes me grateful that RL men and women don't see such things in everything they view - not because they aren't aware of sexism, but because they refuse to 'see' it in everything, especially when it clearly isn't there.

[sweetNsassy]

219. I totally agree....

great post.

[MineralMan]

97. MalwareBytes blocked a tracking cookie at the source site

for that image. Just to let you know.

[HappyMe]

107. Oh, that's what that was.

My computer did something odd when I clicked on it. I'm running a scan now.

[MineralMan]

109. It's a lot of malware out there.

Get MalwareBytes and keep it running in the background. It's amazing all the stuff it blocks.

[HappyMe]

111. I have that.

I'm running my Comodo doodad now.

[Sissyk]

128. I want a doodad!!

Why doesn't my computer have one?

I love that word. I use doohicky alot also! lol!

[Buzz Clik]

121. Is it intrusive?

For instance, McAfee antivirus eats up so much of a computer's resources that it's worse than having a virus.

[MineralMan]

122. I don't find it intrusive. It does pop up a notice when it

acts on a threat, but that helps me know where the threat is coming from. Right now, malwarebytes is using 412K of memory, and zero CPU cycles. I don't find that intrusive at all.

It does nothing with regard to viruses. I use Microsoft Security Essentials for that job. It seems to work well.

Windows Vista.

[Cleita]

105. My dad in his old age kept crashing into stuff oogling at women walking on the side walk.

They didn't have to be wearing shorts, just be attractive. My mom finally took his keys away and refused to let him drive.

[Rex]

143. Strange how cause and effect works.

I see what you did there.

[Small Accumulates]

164. What a peculiar headline

Despite the discussion of the image's authenticity, the headline is quite peculiar. I expected to see an image of women in shorts driving a car into a pole--odd enough in concept. Instead, I see two women in shorts walking on a sidewalk. If the car had, indeed, been driven into the pole, I'd imagine it was an out of control gawker who caused the car to drive into the pole. A meaningful headline then might have said: Gawking man causes car to crash into pole.

[malaise]

167. Hilarious

I wonder what would happen to that poor driver if he saw students on campuses these days

[madokie]

171. and obviously the car didn't crash into the pole

parked up to the pole yes, wrecked into it no.
If it had hit that pole at a mile to two per hour speed it would have bent that bumper and looking at the picture I'd say it is not bent. My observation and my opinion only. dm
At any rate it would be interesting to know the back story of this picture

[dipsydoodle]

172. Picture was taken 1937

could be coincidental and driver was typing while driving.

[madokie]

173. You mean like texting

[dipsydoodle]

174. Yes

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IMAvKDEF9DA/T8xd5e5K_lI/AAAAAAAAKFA/8L7wjrJbSm4/s1600/typing+while+driving.jpg

[Major Nikon]

175. Sweet Jebus, their knees are fully exposed!

[GreenStormCloud]

176. The car didn't crash, it is parked there.

Notice that there is no damage to the bumper. The women in the picture also have pretty legs and figures.

[polly7]

177. Cute pic!

I think (because of the other photo) it was probably a staged shot for a magazine or article also. I love these old black and white shots.

[chervilant]

182. Why?

Why post this, doodle? What's the prurient interest? The high heels that create foot and back problems for many women --just so they'll appear "sexy"? The short shorts that provide such a clear look at those "sexy" legs? Or, a handy excuse to post that other picture of pubescent sexually-objectified young women?

Really, I would like to hear your reason(s)...

[Melon_Lord]

186. Not sure if serious...

[chervilant]

188. Completely.

And, apparently, doodle has no response.

Why am I not surprised?

[Melon_Lord]

190. Ok...

Two pretty girls from behind and a bit of humor...

What's not to like?

[Gravitycollapse]

193. This is why we can't have nice things.

[chervilant]

200. This is why

sexism thrives on DU...

[Gravitycollapse]

201. Sexism thrives everywhere. It is like a plague.

I'm writing this standing in a bar watching a bunch of guys rate women as they walk by. It pervades every aspect of life.

[chervilant]

203. Yep..

Sadly ...

[dipsydoodle]

214. I happen to like vintage pictures

and I've hundreds of dance friends who dress like that now AND hold hands. It was one them who'd posted it where I found it. The amusement revolved around how times have changed.

I didn't even notice the "heels" which dancers wouldn't wear anyway - more into saddles, wedges , penny loafers or sneakers with chromed suede soles.

[chervilant]

216. Thanks for telling me.

Still, I think the pics you chose are provocative, and salacious. The second pic is most distasteful, as it seems to depict sexualized high school girls. After reading the comments herein above, I think other DUers agree.

I find it distressing that some of the male members of this forum are insensitive to the concerns of those of us who've endured countless incidences of sexism and misogyny. Instead of engaging in discussions that result in a better understanding of our experiences, these unfortunates become defensive, dismissive, derisive or sarcastic. I expect better from our male members (I suppose now I should say 'expected').

[pintobean]

187. I had to rec this, dd

This thread just keeps on giving.

[Beacool]

194. Well, it was 1937.

They weren't used to seeing women walk around in shorts.

I found what every girl should have in their bathroom. Where can I buy one?

Breast washer, c.1930s

[TeeYiYi]

198. Maybe it's the Doublemint Twins.

TYY

[pacalo]

210. Four alerts in this thread...

& the majority of the torches & pitchforks are aimed at an auto-removed message (that we can't even read) .


Reminds me of another time & place:





Human beings appreciate beauty, both inward & outward. It's a part of our nature from birth. We'd do well to remember that instead of making it into something dirty. I have no problem with the picture, dipsydoodle, & neither do a lot of other women who appreciate being what they are.

[Union Scribe]

211. I think I pulled something

laughing at that pic. I was not expecting that

[pacalo]

213. I also noticed several jury results posted, too, but there haven't been any call-outs yet.

That's when Skinner's going to stop the car & get out this baby...

[dipsydoodle]

215. The removed one alluded to

circumstances where they may have been younger than they are more likely to be and as a result everything got sidetracked. The poster was eventually PPR'd possibly after a failed a jury blank so I guess it went to MIRT. Blanket auto removal of all of a poster's prior posts does at least reduce the risk of future call outs as was happening in META prior to the introduction of that feature and largely affects only those who had devolved into posting in Meta only.

[chervilant]

218. How noble of you.

So, those of us who find the pictures distressing, or even salacious, are somehow 'out of line,' or perhaps we're 'shrill'?

I can remember a time (oh, so long ago) when I had to endure "catcalls" and leers if I wore shorts when I biked to class. Every single time I wore shorts, I endured unwanted male 'attention.' Even now, some of my female students have discussed similar experiences--AND, feeling at risk around the males who thusly objectify them.

We still have such a long ways to go ...

[pacalo]

220. Anyone who finds that picture distressing or lewd should stay away from the internet.

The picture is obviously a magazine shot & it's decades old from a distant era! Given its context, your adjectives describing the reactions here are spot on.

This is a different society now than it was 70-80 years ago. Instead of playing up the fears of young female students, I would choose to brainstorm with them about what they can do to mentally take control of the situation so that they can react on their own terms: ignore them, make a sarcastic bow, make an exaggerated yawn, make a snappy comeback, whatever. When we can't control others, the next best thing to do is to work on how we can cope with the situation without feeling like a victim.

[chervilant]

222. I was referring to the second pic n/t

[pacalo]

223. I don't think you were. n/t

[chervilant]

224. Agree to disagree

The pic I find "distressing" is the pic of the sexualized and apparently pubescent young women.

Moreover, I find it distressing that so many on DU have so little understanding of the damages (to us ALL) of sexism.

[Orrex]

217. Why are you blaming the car? Why do you hate cars?

[Coyotl]

221. Nice team of horses.

You don't see a nice pair like that often.