Explosions in London

News about Leonard Cohen and his work, press, radio & TV programs etc.
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Post by Tchocolatl » Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:40 am

"Others" Paula? ... I know I have posted two messages in a row, but I am among these "others".

As I said also, there is now two different subjects.

A second is : Rapes and why they are commited.

The statistics also said that more women are raped by people they already know because they trust these people and do not fear them. So they allow them to enter their houses, and they go with them in places they will never go with people they don't know. It seems so logical. Predators have to came close to their prey in a favourable ground in order to catch them. Most of the time women attacked by unknown are attacked by serial criminal predators.

I agreed also with you : clothes have little to do with rapes as they are more an act to fulfil a need of control than anything else.

The too sexy fashion for women and girls and how this is asocial in some circumstances was the first subject that brings the second.

The danger, if there is one, because we keep saying that rapes do not occur in function of the outfit of the victim, is more in the meaning our society is giving to those clothes. After all, some people in tribes could live half nude and they are not raping each others all day and night long. Why? Because their nudity is not perceive as being sexually provocating in their society while it still is in ours, despite the "sexual revolution". I'm afraid this revolution has produced bizarre results even if it started with the best of intentions. I don't think it is a shame that your generation started it Paula, because, before, bad thinks were done under cover, and now they can be discussed and this gives a chance to people to choose a behavior among many. This is not possible when everything is secret.

Also, all men I knew which are sane like very much to look at women without any intention to rape them. They may want to try to sleep with some, however, but this is not a crime. I think that any woman who dresses sexy should be aware that they may be looked at and chased more often then the others and should not blame men to be "pigs". This is a non sense.

Also I don't see why women and young women could not dress as sexy as they want in their personnal and casual life, this in in schools and workplaces that I find this as asocial (and not as violent) as a rape even if there is no violence in doing so, because this is a truly unwanted sexual attitude that can not be avoid, that is imposed. One could choose his friends, but not the people they are going to school and are working with, so this social dimension - the right to others to their integrity - should be respected and not by passed or refused. This is what I meant.

In any case a child should be dress like this. Parents should be able to draw the line between the idols of the kids and how they are dressing in everyday life. Do they go as far as allowing a 2 years old to dress like a clown every day because he saw clowns on stage and find the costume very nice and want to look like the idol? No. Well, it is the same thing. They may allow kids parties where it is OK to be dress like Brit or I don't now who, but that's it.

To say the truth, it is like if this sexual revolution is stucks at some stage, the opposite of what is was. Maybe it is a necessary step to find the balance.

Rome was not constructed in one day. :wink:

I think that if rapes are commited this is because many men still think, somewhere inside, that women have to comply to what they want, they do not see them as equal partners or should not be. Many thinks that patriarcal society came from a inferioritycomplex from men in front of woman capable to give life and enjoying it. So they have to control them in order to benefit or compensate for what women have that they don't. I don't know. I don't the whys and the hows. What I only know is that we come a long way. Despite all bravado running in front of horses, and tutti quanti, women are not totally as equal socially speaking as men are, but in the effort to obtain this social equality, it would be to sad that women do the same mistakes they are victims of. Well... huge question, this one. :D

I mean, divorces and separations would have been much more less dramatic and a trauma for women and children if women were not so dependant of men to be someone in the society. Before, when the man goes anything goes. While now a woman losts "only" her mate (which is a huge important part, but...). Her social image (divorced and single women were so bad seen socially speaking before) is intact. And money is often not a problem to a working woman.

In Iroquois tribes - some centuries ago - women has a good social status. They possessed goods and when Iroquois get married, the man was living in the long house of his wife. Separations were not a big deal socially speakin, also, for women, as I was told that when a woman wanted to end her union she was putting the shoes of her husband outside and this was the sign that he has to get back to his mother's house. But I'm not sure about the last "fact", however.

Wow. this is going far, now! This discussion. End of the post. :D
User avatar
Posts: 25464
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh » Sat Aug 06, 2005 2:07 pm

As usual, all I have time for here is a brief comment. This was one thing that had struck me as my having left out, that I was going to add on when I found time:
Also, all men I knew which are sane like very much to look at women without any intention to rape them. They may want to try to sleep with some, however, but this is not a crime.
Mode of dress may make a man [or woman] think of sex; however, that is not the same as rape. There is much more to the issue, as a whole, and I thank you, Tchocolatl, for fleshing it out more. "Date rape" and "acquaintance rape" are, indeed, very common. Familiarity breeds trust, amd trust with some men can make you physically vulnerable [and with others, emotionally :wink: ].

I agree, Paula, that things have gone quite far afield from where they once were in the area of dress. I also feel that we've lost more [literally, as well :wink: ] than we've gained in that.

Despite the 'working woman' phenomena, Tchocolatl, women [at least in the U.S.] still tend to fare significantly more poorly, financially, in divorces. Women's salaries still tend to be lower, and rearing children never costs as little as child support provides, if it's paid.

Okay, gotta go finish getting ready for work at my second job.

~ Lizzy
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Post by Tchocolatl » Sat Aug 06, 2005 3:40 pm

Quickly also.

So true, Lz. In general, women are working at often 1/2 or 3/4 of the salary of men, even when they are doing the same job, and even if what they are doing in a different way is equally a good service to the society as what men are providing.

Women worked "for nothing" for so many years. in the houses So, it is seen almost like a raise and a royal privilege that she could leave the house.

This is because many people think that the sexual revolution is over (an't good anymore :wink: )

What a joke. The "liberation of women" will be done when the difference between men and women will be recognized and recongnized as being good and valuable and as good and valuable.

Gezz.... In the quartier Gay some gays don't want to have lesbians in the area, they chase them away, when asked why, they say that they want to be "between them". What a freedom we have gained : gays men can marry and keep women (those "creatures", "witches") as unwanted members of society.

OK. This is an extreme example. But it is an image that "speaks" loud.

We have not finished to fight to be recognized as women, but because we are allowed to be copies (false persons, though) of men, then it should be OK.


Things will be OK when feminity will be recognized as equally good as masculinity.

What we, and the world, have lost more than gained, is the feminine energy, I guess. As we are allow to act as men, but not as women in this society.

We have not lost the burden of the whole social and economical dependance of women and children on a sole man. G_d. no. Thanks G_d, this is over. This was unhuman for everybody, the children, that depend of such and unbalanced market, the woman who was not allowed to be free, and the man who was the economical slave of the family.

Don't fall in the piège that Good Old Time was better, because it was not. People had even more problems sometimes, in regard of rapes and "molestation", they just don't have the freedom to do something about it, to talk about it, so it looks good but it is not. Not a all.

Take the alcoohol and cigarette problem, for example. Nobody was counscious about this, so they were drinking and smoking too much, they were sick, but "happy". The same thing goes for many many so many examples.

The problems are not worst, they are different.

Now nothing is perfect, and we have other real problems, in fact.

First do we really need all the crap they want to sell us? No. So working for money to be able to buy more and more crap this could be rethink.

It would be even better if we do NOT buy those big cars that are polluting to death and make us dependant of dirty natural resources. It would be even better if we would take time to take care of the environment instead of finding our salvation in consommation.

But ey! People are like zombies that nothing would wake up. I want the big car, I want the big house, I want to full both with big crap.

We need the necessary material for living I know (two of these necessary basic matters are oxygene and water, and we are turning air and water into poison with our frenetic erratic consommation habits, but, that does not matter, he? We want more crap)

But getting back to more traditional way of thinking, if women were fairly paid, if the working market would adjust to motherhood and fatherhood and if society would make more place for children everybody would gain.

For this, the feminine energy in everybody may be allowed to be.

So this is not because we had gone too far, but because we stop to go ahead. Or we are pacing very slow in comparaison of the baby boomers social booms.

(Of course we did not discuss about social classes, were some people, women included, have more freedom because they don't have to work at all or don't have to do it so much or in such condition that "work" is an euphemism, we are discussing about "ordinary" people).

It seems that it is a natural law that order always came out of chaos, so don't panic (its not titanic) anybody because things are changing and are not solids for a while, while they changed.

What a gorgeous Summer Saturday Morning! WoW have a nice week-end people! (Have to finish something, another day that is lost of not indulge myself in happy lazyness - Oh I'll do it in another "happy" way, however)


It is August 6, the Hiroshima Bomb remimbering day. By the way.
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 9:10 pm
Location: USA

Post by Linda » Sat Aug 06, 2005 6:35 pm

Visit http://www.we'renotafraid.com

If this website has been posted here before forgive me for posting it again. I have not had time to keep up with the message board, however thought of some of you when I visited this website.
The Leonard Cohen fans from London have been on my mind.
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 9:10 pm
Location: USA

Post by Linda » Sat Aug 06, 2005 6:45 pm

It doesn't work with the apostrophe. Sorry http://www.werenotafraid.com
User avatar
Posts: 3152
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 1:20 am
Location: London

Post by Paula » Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:25 pm

Linda so nice to see you here. Hope life is treating you well :D

Tchoc sorry for calling you "others" I read the posting and couldn't remember who posted it when I replied.
Young dr. Freud
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:41 am

Post by Young dr. Freud » Sun Aug 07, 2005 12:48 am

I don't think anyone is questioning the good sense (and good manners) to dress appropriately for the occasion.

but a woman who has not enough kindness or respect, or maturity to understands "laws" of sex, it is poor social ways. It is as abusive as rape, though less violent.
This proposition is invalid. A woman who exhibits "poor social ways" is not being as "abusive" as a rapist though less violent.

You must define your terms.

Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Post by Tchocolatl » Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:28 pm

Courage and stupid bravado is two different things.

What is the point of not being afraid of bombs that kills and bring sufferings?

Non sense.

This is not because one is afraid of the bully that one will comply to everething the bully wants.

In the contrary, fear is an alarm signal to make something that treatening live to stop.

If we disconnect the alarm, then what will stop us to attack and kill each others until there is no one left?

The recognition of fear and sufferings, may, however, be the beginning of the counscious to act in a more commen sense way, instead of keeping killing and/or trowing bombs to each other's head.

This is scary : http://www.lclark.edu/~history/HIROSHIMA/

The bombing in England is scary.

Please be not so scared at a point that you have to deny it.
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Post by Tchocolatl » Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:42 pm

Dear YdF,

Asocial : please see adjective 2 : http://www.hyperdic.net/dic/asocial.htm

Violent : please see adjective 2 also : http://www.hyperdic.net/dic/violent.htm

Now you have to make the connection between the two yourself.

I' ll give you a last example of what I mean :

How would you - and others would feel about you - if you are the only person to be nude in a group of people that were "dress for success" or in a way that social meaning of your society means "power" and "authority"?

I repeat there is no violence, hence not as much violent emotions. (although some sexual bombs, sometimes .... :wink: )
User avatar
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 12:31 am
Location: Gouda, Netherlands

Post by Wenslauw » Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:43 pm

Tchocolatl wrote:Annaedith, I agree :wink:
Now the priest is dressed as a priest in the Church, the judge as a judge in a court and the blind wears sunglasses and white can on the street. But woman could be dressed sexy anywhere anytime? Non sense. Casual and personal fields, OK, but the rest, school and working places, I find it non relevant. This is weird. As weird as some men that are going into seduction for nothing.

It just seems you have issues with female sexuality and emancipation, maybe you should look at yourself instead of all the pretty girls passing you in clothes suitable for a warm summer.
Tchocolatl wrote: 2) There are things to do or not to do in order of arousing human sexuality. It is very very strange to say that it does not matter if someone is dressed sexy or not, or if it goes into a seducing behavior in not appropriate time and place, in this matter. Very strange. Very very strange. It is like a denial of realities about human sexuality. A rest of puritanism that can not admit human sexuality in all its realities by saying that everything is OK after having said that anything was OK.
This is an old argument. It's very old and every time it's about men deciding about how women should behave and act. Your type has lost, come to terms with it or move to some nice dictatorship where ideas like this are accepted.

I cannot stand people who try to roll back our achievements. Besides, I like my women in revealing clothes!

User avatar
Posts: 25464
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh » Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:56 pm

Thank you to the Brits, who played a major role in rescuing the seven Russians from out of their rescue submersible.

[I didn't want to start a new thread to say that, but did want to say it.]

~ Lizzytysh
Last edited by lizzytysh on Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Post by Tchocolatl » Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:00 pm

Wsw, "your women"? :? Are you a Mormon? :wink:

I joke because you obviously reacted to something that goes on your nerves that has nothing to do with me or my argumentations.

With my lecture, maybe "look at you flaw first, you'll look at society/others after". Or stop the crap or let's cook the missionnary. All the same thing. I don't know. It looks a bit like that.

The priest thing maybe, I always forget that for some people religion is like devil, this as much pertubating as to talk about sex (people more often, loose their sense of logic and loose their grip and slip in the masterpiece), I should have think not to talk about priest ALSO, sorry, but as I have few taboo..., I have, but few, it goes through the net of my discriminition.

So what can I answer? And I don't want to go over the lecture another time, and besides all is there, and all my other posts as well. It up to you if you want a repetition.

What can I say more to you? I take note of your opinion. That's it (sounds a good answer).

Yes A big hurray for the rescue! What a story I was suffocating just to hear about that! (I would never, ever be a fellow submarine member! Arrggg just to think to be in a can down doowwwwnnn there, and now this. ohhhhh )
User avatar
Posts: 3152
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 1:20 am
Location: London

Post by Paula » Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:42 pm

Lizzie it was good news about the Russian sub wasn't it. I am so glad they got out OK. We are an island race and this is when the Royal Navy comes into its own.
User avatar
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:53 am
Location: Ireland, where the clouds meet the sea

Post by annaedith » Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:09 pm

it's very interesting to read all your opinions! it seems that we mainly agree that one does give a message with what one is wearing, and i do believe that it is not only percieved consciously, but also in the deeper parts of the mind. and now matter how far the evolution of the humans is, the unconscious still is there and creates feelings and wishes. advertisements make use of that, and so do people dressing in certain ways, be it sexy, autoritary, alternative...
*********** beauté est partout**********
User avatar
Posts: 798
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:41 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Tri-me » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:15 pm

How do you teach common sense? I remember when I was 18 living in Montreal taking a seminar of self-protection. We were 6 men 6 women. We were given a scenario where a woman wearing sexy clothes was rapped. Her boyfriend was upset and unsupportive we were asked who was wrong. Many chose the woman for her clothes. She was the last to balme first the rapist then the boyfriend for being unsupportive. Blaming the victim is wrong. There is a woman in Pakistan trying to come over to Canada because she instisted in persuing charges against a man who repeatedly and brutally raped her. Her family and the community want to kill her for bringing shame.
If I was to walk down the street naked or topless any person that rapes me is in the wrong. Rapists are sociopaths maybe victims of violence themselves. Rape has been (is) used as a form of humilitaion. It states in the Bible that sodomising your enemy is wrong. Soldiers would sodomise men and rape women to bring shame and dishonour. A young woman wearing extra sexy revealing clothes needs to know that they are sending out a signal that they are interested in sex, why else would yuo wear a peek a boo dress? This does not mean beat me and rape me. I don't care what your culture or background no man or woman deserves or enjoys being raped. Even small childeren who are victims of pedifiles know that what is happening is wrong. Rapists are equal to murders in my mind because the victim is a victim and suffers for the rest of their lives from it.
I have never been raped don't interpret that my ranting is coming from a person with experience. I lived in Toronto/Scarborough when Paul Bernardo was raping women in broad daylight. When I lived in Parkdale there was a man raping women in their apartments. You never come to my place before calling. Men or women who rape are predators and deserve the same sentence as a murderer and mental rehabilitation. I am disgusted that Carla Humolka has been released from prison.
Cheers & DLight
Tri-me (tree-mite) Sheldrön
"Doorhinge rhymes with orange" Leonard Cohen
Post Reply

Return to “News”