Jump to content

Study: Virtual Women Show Twice as Much 'Skin' as Men


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3020 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Perrie Juran wrote:


Melita Magic wrote:

 

 I remember a rape law in Italy not too long ago that said any woman wearing jeans couldn't have been raped because they are too hard to remove. 


It isn't a "law."  It was an appeal courts decision based on the facts in evidence regarding a verdict.

In my opinion, the Judges who reversed that conviction should have all been strung up by their testicles.

Reminds me of a recent employment suite in the USA where it was found that a boss could fire an employee because she was 'too hot'...

For some reason the fact that he had been telling this employee about the activities inside of his pants was not an issue... and in fact the judge's used it to his credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

In regards to men, they too dress differently in SL than in RL and show off more.  It is common to see a guy going around without a shirt when normally they wouldn't in RL.  They also wear ripped jeans or even chaps that show more than they'd ever show in RL and very low slung jeans with or without open flies that don't leave much to the imagination with some even coming with a 'package'.

As a San Franciscian I've seen my share of men in chaps in RL. Often -nothing- but the chaps...

And its never the well groomed handsome ones. Its usually the ones a bit long in hair and a tad like Ron Jeremy looks these days as he gets up in years.

:matte-motes-shocked:

--||-
Link to post
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

As a San Franciscian I've seen my share of men in chaps in RL. Often -nothing- but the chaps...

And its never the well groomed handsome ones. Its usually the ones a bit long in hair and a tad like Ron Jeremy looks these days as he gets up in years.

:matte-motes-shocked:

with all due respect, Pussycat, I think San Fran is the SL of the RL world....:matte-motes-sunglasses-2:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

It was not my intent to belittle in any way the seriousness of the issue.

As I have stated on many occasions, I abhor violence and abuse.

No, I didn't take it that way. Sorry Perrie I jumped at least one foot up on a soap box there and began speaking to 'the topic' instead of just to you. I did feel some communications between us were becoming garbled and in those cases I have a tendency to over explain, too. Kind of a pain.

I did notice you said that and I think you're a good guy. 

It's hard for me to remain detached on the issue. And even if I wanted not to notice, being female it is hard to not notice another headline - such as the one Pussycat mentions a bit later in this topic about the employee being 'too hot' - and say 'ouch.' Those and the stories of things that have happened to women I know - way too many - stick with me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Melita Magic wrote:

 

 I remember a rape law in Italy not too long ago that said any woman wearing jeans couldn't have been raped because they are too hard to remove. 


It isn't a "law."  It was an appeal courts decision based on the facts in evidence regarding a verdict.

In my opinion, the Judges who reversed that conviction should have all been strung up by their testicles.

Reminds me of a recent employment suite in the USA where it was found that a boss could fire an employee because she was 'too hot'...

For some reason the fact that he had been telling this employee about the activities inside of his pants was not an issue... and in fact the judge's used it to his credit.

 

I remember that headline, too. I couldn't figure out why none of the journalists covering it even mentioned that the woman had been sexually harassed. Or that her lawyer hadn't sued on those grounds instead of being 'fired for being too hot' - she actually was fired for 'making the boss too hot' - he said he fired her so he 'wouldn't be tempted and get in trouble at home.'

I hear about a lot of chauvinism in courts, but the judge agreeing with that...I thought, what year is this? 

(For those unfamiliar with the story, a woman worked for a man who was always telling her she was making him horny, and lots of vulgar comments, sexual come-ons, etc. He fired her for reasons above, and she sued for that; the judge found for the boss.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3020 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...