The world’s most dangerous countries for women 2018

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

2 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

😂 Would that it were possible elmcitymaven, but for legal reasons pertaining to the incident in question, I must politely decline. I am, however, flattered. 😉

Well, more's the pity, though I respect your legal obligation to keep schtum. So rare we get relatively young (or so I have deduced from your posts) specimens in here of the male variety, and the ladies in here (what few of us there are) could do with a bit of a heart flutter. ❤️

 

Of course, men of CEHST, you could always prove me wrong and post pics. 😶

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 hours ago, beloved_dingo said:

I completely disagree with this. Just because someone fits a person's idea of "attractive" does not mean they should have to "get used to" being touched or spoken to in a way that makes them uncomfortable. Also being looked at by a stranger and being touched by a stranger are very different things. 

 

As a side note, it is not uncommon for victims of prior abuse to "overreact" when someone unexpectedly invades their personal space, regardless of intent. 

 

You didn't fully understand what I was saying, or else you would not be disagreeing with me, for I am not wrong.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

9 hours ago, laylalex said:

Thank you, and sorry to read of your experience. Unfortunately it rings pretty true for me too. I have been touched and prodded and grabbed and moved in public places in more ways than I care to think about. It doesn't have anything to do with me being pretty or not. Some people might think that because I am on the prettier side of the conventional attractiveness scale that I should be "used" to it, but being pretty doesn't mean that I have an open invitation to be hassled, physically or otherwise. I do not like being touched without consent, which I don't think is a very controversial point of view. I don't think men like being touched without consent either. 

My wife has never been touched in a public setting, unwareanted, outside of a dance club.  Not making excuses for men in a club, but getting touched while dancing and drinking is FAR different from being touched in a grocery store, IMO.

 

No way I can determine why it is happening to you, other than the location in which ye reside (men there thinking it is ok).  But having lived in several states and countries, and it never having happened to her, I can only deduce that the issue is where you live, that men feel it is acceptable to touch women... I would move to a location where strange men respect women.  But that's just me.

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 hours ago, laylalex said:

I don't think cheating is always the end to a relationship, particularly when the "cheating" is of the emotional variety, and there hasn't been any physical contact. Different couples will react in different ways, clearly the Clintons worked it out in some way. I suspected my ex of cheating with at least one of his assistants, but I never could get proof. He swears he has proof of me cheating on him but I have no idea how that could be the case when I never did! Just another power move.

 

And yes, he was the sole provider, but only because he insisted that I not work and focus on starting a family. I wasn't happy with it but since I wanted to keep him happy, I went along with it. It was tragic, yes.

Say WhAt?!?

 

Emotional cheating is the worst kind.  Slipping and falling into a (private parts) can be forgiven.  But when one spouse falls for another person, emotionally.... I feel there is NO walking that back.  Completely disagree with you on this one. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by ALFKAD

[TBoneTX 43,057]

13 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

choose another identity

I choose to identify as a Zoroastrian Eskimo.

13 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

Washington faced Cornwallis on the literal field of battle

and said, "Welcome to the Colonies."

[Dashinka 23,238]

4 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

My wife has never been touched in a public setting, unwareanted, outside of a dance club.  Not making excuses for men in a club, but getting touched while dancing and drinking is FAR different from being touched in a grocery store, IMO.

 

No way I can determine why it is happening to you, other than the location in which ye reside (men there thinking it is ok).  But having lived in several states and countries, and it never having happened to her, I can only deduce that the issue is where you live, that men feel it is acceptable to touch women... I would move to a location where strange men respect women.  But that's just me.

 

 

I always wonder if all these folks are touching others in weird ways, how were they brought up?  I know I was taught to respect everyone even those that might be considered enemies, which means keeping my space, announcing myself, and just generally being polite.  Although not a perfect analogy, when I am riding my bike in the park, I always announce myself quite loudly (almost everyone has ear buds in) when coming up from behind, but alternatively, I do encounter a lot of folks that do not do that which is especially troubling when running with the dog.  One of these days I am going to let Dasha (the Lab who thinks she is a fish) knock one of those bikers down, but of course that would probably lead to a lawsuit.

[cyclone27 710]

Spend sometime in SEA - the roles are reversed. Lads are looked at like meat and ladies are extremely aggressive. The novelty of it all grows tiresome very quickly.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

14 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Well, more's the pity, though I respect your legal obligation to keep schtum. So rare we get relatively young (or so I have deduced from your posts) specimens in here of the male variety, and the ladies in here (what few of us there are) could do with a bit of a heart flutter. ❤️

 

Of course, men of CEHST, you could always prove me wrong and post pics. 😶

Off topic question.. In legal normal people speak.. How is it possible that one Fed judge can rule one way on a issue, then another rule the opposite way and the last ruling sticks. If that makes sense. 

49 minutes ago, cyclone27 said:

Spend sometime in SEA - the roles are reversed. Lads are looked at like meat and ladies are extremely aggressive. The novelty of it all grows tiresome very quickly.

Asian women are very dominant I have learned 

[Dashinka 23,238]

55 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Off topic question.. In legal normal people speak.. How is it possible that one Fed judge can rule one way on a issue, then another rule the opposite way and the last ruling sticks. If that makes sense. 

Asian women are very dominant I have learned 

Political leanings?  As to which ruling sticks, I think you need @elmcitymavento weigh in.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

50 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Political leanings?  As to which ruling sticks, I think you need @elmcitymavento weigh in.

Hope she does. Just interested in the muckety muck of it. Seems like you could just keep judge shopping until you win. So much political BS with federal judges legislating from the bench, the Supreme court needs a 24 response hotline 

[Boris Farage 353]

19 hours ago, beloved_dingo said:

I completely disagree with this. Just because someone fits a person's idea of "attractive" does not mean they should have to "get used to" being touched or spoken to in a way that makes them uncomfortable. Also being looked at by a stranger and being touched by a stranger are very different things. 

 

As a side note, it is not uncommon for victims of prior abuse to "overreact" when someone unexpectedly invades their personal space, regardless of intent. 

 

I'll be the first to unequivocally state that touching someone sexually without their consent or whatever is right out. Having said that, it used to be you could put your hand on a co-worker's shoulder, compliment their appearance, touch their arm or even give a celebratory high five. No longer; those days of collegial comradery are gone. Women didn't used to have an issue with any of that, but I suppose they do now? Or more likely, women didn't change, most of them would still be ok with it, but we all must be politically correct, mustn't we.

But honestly why shouldn't an attractive woman get used to being treated like an attractive woman? They're obviously waking up in the morning, making themselves up, buying and wearing flattering clothing. Why can't I or anyone else show appreciation? Again, I'm not speaking of assault. Just a simple, "you look nice" or "that's a very nice scent you're wearing today." It's madness.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

20 hours ago, yuna628 said:

I think it was because of the fact that he didn't tap her arm or touch her arm or even say 'excuse me ma'am do you need help?' He flicked her arm. A flick is quite different than a tap or using your voice. I don't know any woman that would appreciate such behavior, and I don't think any husband should tolerate such behavior toward their wives either.

 

I can recall a time where a man suddenly approached me in a grocery store as I was walking to another area, got extremely close into my personal space (close enough to grab my hip or butt or grind against me!) grabbed me by the arm (!!!!) and started talking to me as if he thought he knew me or I was his partner. I twisted away from him, elbowed him, and advised him to get away. He continued to follow me aggressively through the store, swearing and leering until I approached security. Should I have taken his behavior as not nefarious?

 

Even if the other posters experience was not truly nefarious, I can say without doubt that some people need to be acutely aware of personal space.

 

This has not been the last or even the worst experience I and other women have had. Pretty women or non pretty woman, any woman does not deserve the behavior some display towards them.

Well, it seems "flick" is a term y'all are more in tune with with than I am.  Probably means something other than "I flicked the bug off the table".  A touch/flick/brush is the same to me.  As you said, a tap, particularly combined with the right words, no big deal.  But a light touch, say a caress, totally wrong.

 

As to your bolded question, you absolutely should have interpreted it the way you did.  You probably should have introduced his nose to your elbow, and quickly.  Might just be the places we have lived, but I don't know of anyone in my close circle who have ever experienced this, nor what @laylalex did.  I was asking just for clarification, not doubting how it felt to her.  More that I find it hard to believe that some stranger would actually do that to another person.  If someone did that to my wife, and I was in the area, I would likely risk some time in court and help them understand just how inappropriate they were acting, since their parents obviously failed in that aspect.

 

I have seen some strange behavior in my time, from men taking a leak on the stairs going into a NYC subway, to the guy trying to hawk money from strangers in a nice, polite voice, then suddenly looking into the corner ceiling, as if someone up there were watching him, and unload a vile string of cursing.  Then turn around and go right back to begging for money in a nice voice.  Some people are truly crazy.

 

I'm not much of a huggy/touchy person myself, but have learned to accept such behavior as normal from family and friends.  But when I first meet a lady, I tend to prefer not to be hugged, or to have them touching my shoulder while talking to me.  It's just... weird to me, to touch someone you don't know well.  That being said, I've never had it be so blatant that I had to ask them to stop doing it.  Sorry it has happened to y'all. 

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

4 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Off topic question.. In legal normal people speak.. How is it possible that one Fed judge can rule one way on a issue, then another rule the opposite way and the last ruling sticks. If that makes sense. 

Asian women are very dominant I have learned 

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Political leanings?  As to which ruling sticks, I think you need @elmcitymavento weigh in.

maven in the house -- good morning! It's a very good question.

 

So we start with a really simple premise: why do we even have courts? Well, there's not just that they make decisions on issues or cases, but that they can provide remedies to aggrieved parties. That's the same whether it's a criminal matter (the remedy is freedom or punishment by a fine/incarceration, etc.) or a civil matter. When the court is dealing with a civil matter,  there are pretty much dealing with matters of law and matters of equity. I will spare you a history lesson, but essentially the civil courts used to be divided into courts of law and courts of equity, but now they are merged in almost every state in America. The difference was that a court sitting in law can provide a "legal" remedy, i.e., monetary damages are the appropriate remedy. Think personal injury or breach of contract as examples. Courts sitting in equity provide equitable remedies, and equitable remedies are available when monetary damages will not suffice. An example would be when you have a purchase and sale agreement for the transfer of real property. Real property is considered "unique" because no two plots of land are the same, even ones of identical size with identical houses on them. So the remedy would be to compel the transfer of the property through an order of specific performance. Or an action for nuisance -- you want someone to stop doing something, and for whatever reason, damages won't be enough. So you get a mandatory injunction to get the other party to stop.

 

When it comes to something like injunctive relief -- like a prohibitory injunction or specific performance -- the court is wearing its equity hat. (A very fancy hat!) And when you have an action at equity, a court is required to "balance the equities" in coming up with a remedy. This means that there are certain factors it needs to take into account when issuing a preliminary injunction, which is what was sought here in both courts. There are different formulations, but this is pretty much it -- copied from my law school notes: “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that [1] he is likely to succeed on the merits, that [2] he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Here, we're really thinking about 2-4 -- the first one seems more important than it really is, for any number of boring reasons that I can talk about if you like, but put it to one side.

 

So here the party petitioning the court (the ACLU, I think?) needed to show that if the asylum policy were put into effect, there would be irreparable harm right away (presumably to legitimate asylum seekers), that it is more just to put a hold on the implementation of the policy before its constitutionality/legality can be decided, and that halting the implementation is in the interest of the public. Now your questions are really about why this judge "wins" over the other one. Well, it comes back to pesky old equity. Equity is actually really super cool, I am absolutely fascinated by it and have been since I went to law school back in England. (It was my second best class after property law!) Equity is a quirk of our Anglo-American common law system, and it is not black letter law. It is at its heart based on the question: what is more fair? Generally, a party that has or will suffer a wrong has a stronger position in seeking equity from the court than the party who has inflicted or will inflict the harm. So, it follows it is more fair to press pause when someone's civil rights and civil liberties could be affected by a policy before the merits of the policy can be heard.

 

Applying this to our situation, the first judge said okay, the policy can be implemented before we decide on whether it's actually legally correct, and then the second said, hold on a sec, sparky -- legitimate asylum seekers could suffer irreparable harm if we say nope, we're full up, before we actually figure out if the change is legal. And because the balance of equities tips in favor of a person who has suffered a wrong (i.e., being denied even attempting to seek asylum, when that is legal), we have to go with the court that permits the status quo to continue. When it comes to preliminary injunctive relief, the courts tend to favor the status quo -- should have mentioned that earlier. Of course, the underlying issue of whether the asylum ban still needs to be decided, and when that happens, the preliminary injunction will either be made permanent, or it will end.

 

This has been Part XXIV in a continuing series of maven's VJ Law School, peace out. ❤️💋💘

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by elmcitymaven
Edit: to add emojis.

[laylalex 7,247]

12 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

My wife has never been touched in a public setting, unwareanted, outside of a dance club.  Not making excuses for men in a club, but getting touched while dancing and drinking is FAR different from being touched in a grocery store, IMO.

 

No way I can determine why it is happening to you, other than the location in which ye reside (men there thinking it is ok).  But having lived in several states and countries, and it never having happened to her, I can only deduce that the issue is where you live, that men feel it is acceptable to touch women... I would move to a location where strange men respect women.  But that's just me.

 

 

I think it's pretty normal for men -- especially the good ones, who would never overstep boundaries -- not to be aware of all the ways that women get harassed in day to day life. I agree that dancing/drinking in a club is really different from being touched in a grocery store -- it is pretty normal to bump up against people on the dance floor, or if you start dancing with someone and they touch your hand as part of that dancing, okay. But it is NOT okay in a grocery store (check), the DMV (happened at the Cranston, RI office), getting into my car at a 7-11 (a man put his hand on my arm as I was opening the door to tell me how beautiful I am; this was in Indiana, I think), walking from the gym all sweaty in workout gear (various places in SoCal and in RI and in London and in Bristol...), etc. etc. That's just scratching the surface. It can happen ANYWHERE. Just because you don't see it, and it doesn't happen to women you know (as far as you know) doesn't mean it isn't happening. When my fiance is with me, this stuff doesn't happen because guys just won't try it if another man is around.

 

12 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Say WhAt?!?

 

Emotional cheating is the worst kind.  Slipping and falling into a (private parts) can be forgiven.  But when one spouse falls for another person, emotionally.... I feel there is NO walking that back.  Completely disagree with you on this one. 

Maybe I have a different point of view because I will own up to the fact that at the very, very end of my marriage I was involved in what might be considered an emotional affair. The marriage was pretty much over, I was so miserable, and I had reconnected earlier in the year with an old friend of mine (now my fiance) whose wife had just left him, taking with her their very young daughter. We ended up talking and talking and talking all the time, and as I did, I realized I wasn't in love with my husband any more, and that I was in love with the friend. It's....complicated. There are a lot of details that make everyone look terrible, and it's enough to know that it was a classic "love triangle" (my fiance and I dated in college for a bit when I was on a relationship break from my ex, and my fiance and ex are former best friends). I am not saying what I did was right, but if I had been having sex with him, I think it would have been worse, knowing how jealous my ex is.

[laylalex 7,247]

2 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

But honestly why shouldn't an attractive woman get used to being treated like an attractive woman? They're obviously waking up in the morning, making themselves up, buying and wearing flattering clothing. Why can't I or anyone else show appreciation? Again, I'm not speaking of assault. Just a simple, "you look nice" or "that's a very nice scent you're wearing today." It's madness.

Morning! I guess (I have been told) that I fall into the category of "attractive woman" so I have some opinions.  

 

Yes, when I get up I do make myself "pretty." I wear makeup (not too much, just a little blush/lipstick/mascara, enough to look not deathly) and I think I dress nicely, though not very provocatively. I work in retail, so I don't dress up too much, but I wear good quality classics that are well-fitted. And I will take a compliment from men who are being sincere, but trust me, most women knows the difference between a "you look lovely today!" that is meant as a general appreciation, and one that has... subtext.