[Wellsy]

My main point that I'm trying to make is that some women themselves facilitate and perpetuate rape culture. They themselves legitimize behaviour that otherwise is wrong.

Not only that they themselves do exact same thing to men. (catcalling)

Indeed, there are women who do as much to men.
Though what I'm unclear about is that it is necessarily as prevalent among women or whether it has the same function. In which much of the harassment towards men is also perpetuated by men.
For example, men don't necessarily experience harassment in the same way as women do and although them being a target may be itself a function of enforced regulation of social norms. As sexual harassment towards women itself functions under the guise that if women only restrained themselves to the good behaviour expected of women that they wouldn't be subject to harm.
The sexual harassment of men? Exploring the concept with theory and data

Only a few men mentioned sexual coercion as a form of sexual harassment against men, perhaps because of its low base rate. Unwanted sexual attention was mentioned more than any other type of behavior. The comments of the few men who drew on personal experiences suggest that men receive unwanted sexual attention from both men and women. The second most frequent category of behavior described was gender harassment. As predicted, gender harassment took on different forms for men than for women. Negative stereotyping of men and punishments for deviating from the masculine gender role can be viewed as direct negotiations of gender in the workplace: the former denigrating adherence to traditional conceptualizations of masculinity and the latter enforcing it. The latter form has not been examined by the sexual harassment literature so far-for men, or its counterpart for women, enforcing traditional conceptualizations of femininity. That these men identified such experiences as sexually harassing supports our suggestion that sexual harassment stems from such negotiations of gender.

Two other themes emerged in the men’s comments regarding what they thought constituted sexual harassment for men: perceived organizational favoring of women, and women abusing this perceived power and privilege. Again, sexual harassment can be interpreted as one aspect of the negotiation and renegotiation of gender roles that act as forms of social control. According to this framework, men will experience as sexually harassing phenomena that threaten their high status, and women will experience as sexually harassing phenomena that reinforce their low status. It is therefore easy to see how the two perceived phenomena of organizational favoring of women and women abusing this power may be interpreted by men as harassing: they act to threaten male privilege. Men’s perceptions of this as sexual harassment may represent a backlash to changing norms in the workplace. It seems as if some of these men may be using the language of sexual harassment to give voice to their unease and anger at the changing workplace.

The evaluations, sense of control, and affective responses reported by these men with regard to sexual harassment suggest that the construct is not an entirely negative one, a very threatening one, or even a very serious one (see also Gutek, 1985). Almost half the men evaluating sexually harassing behaviors gave them a positive evaluation, indicating that they would enjoy being sexually harassed. (By definition, then, they would not experience harassment.) The vast majority of the men indicated that they perceive a good deal of control in a sexually harassing situation- that they could easily stop or change it. Finally, no men said that they would be threatened by potentially sexually harassing behaviors, and several of them explicitly offered that they would not be threatened. Clearly these men do not expect to experience the levels of anxiety and loss of control that women report enduring when sexually harassed. This would suggest that what these men generally experience or are expecting to experience when they speak of sexual harassment is social-sexual behavior, rather than harassment per se (Gutek et al. , 1990).
...
Finally, of the men who reported harassing experiences, more of them had been harassed by other men than by women. This concurs with OUT power analysis, as men have more organizational, social, and physical power with which to harass other men than do women. In fact, it is likely that the closest analogy to male-to-female sexual harassment for men is that of male-to-male harassment. This issue has only recently begun to be explored (Waldo, Berdahl, 81 Fitzgerald, 1996).

For an experience to be sexually harassing from a psychological perspective, it must be stressful and threatening to the victim’s well-being (Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Fitzgerald et al., in press). Results from both of our studies suggest that men expect to experience much less anxiety and discomfort as targets of potentially harassing behaviors from a female perpetrator than women do as targets of potentially harassing behaviors from a male perpetrator. This suggests that, even if men report experiencing such behaviors, they may not experience them as “harassment” from a psychological perspective. Thus, studies that report simple frequencies among men of such behaviors may overestimate the frequency of men’s sexual harassment by women from a psychological perspective.

From a legal perspective, an experience is sexually harassing if it is motivated by the gender of the victim, if it is unwelcome, if it is generally repetitive, and if it could lead to negative organizational and psychological outcomes. Previous research and some of our results suggest that much of what women call sexual harassment is not unwelcome or threatening when experienced by men, and that the consequences are not as damaging for men as they are for women. Some behaviors, however, may be experienced as unwelcome and threatening and may lead to negative outcomes for men - for example, the rare case of sexual coercion, which involves the abuse of organizational power.

Which I think relates well to your lower point that not all women are feminists and even under the label feminism, there isn't a single coherent and self conscious movement but different strands.

Similarly when women dress in revealing clothing do they not show that they are not more but mere objects of beauty and desire, with no other essence to them? But feminism has made this a taboo to acknowledge. Yet do not such women perpetuate and facilitate objectification of themselves and women; the exact thing that feminist are fighting against.

Do women choose to willfully ignore this aspect of social relations between men and women? Do they willfully ignore how negatively they effect men and women alike by their vulgar expression with their clothing? Do they not legitimize as a standard of social norm that otherwise is wrong. Yet when pressed on this subject they become defensive and have made it to the point that it is culturally a taboo now to bring up this subject.

Btw, if men experience something positive, like seeing a woman in vulgar attire, it does not mean it is a good thing.

So again, perhaps men are not the only ones who partake in rape culture.


Also to point out. One of the fundamental mistakes of feminism aside of many, is that it proposes to represent all women, when it does not. You can never represent all women; as there are women that differ drastically from one another. Similarity their attempt to lump all men into one category of behaviour is also false, as men also differ from one another.

This picture in our minds that feminist have painted, neatly defined women on one side VS. one character defined men on the other; is fundamentally false and impractically simplistic.

I think the issue is that no matter what a woman does in regards to her attire, it does nothing to displace the view of some that her value is based in her sexuality. Covering up would only regress the issue in regards to helping to normalize women's bodies as not inherently sexual, but often seen as sexual as a result of desire projected onto them, which hiding one's body exacerbates. One is only naked because one wears clothes, nudity doesn't exist when it's more normative to show ones body but not necessarily in a sexual context but even in just a practical way like it being hot.

But there are indeed women who make money and cater to men's desire of them. But the basis of such seems in part related to the commodification of relations inherent to capitalism having expanded the market over society.
When money becomes irrelevant to sexuality though, I don't think status will be as significant as we can already see it in a minor form in regards to powerful women who are just as sexual at men without consequence.
Although many women who are of less status and positional power suffer severe consequences for being sexual beings.

Perhaps you need to be clearer in regards to how women's attire is meant to be implicated in 'rape culture'. As there can be a lot to unpack there, for example the common notion that women's attire is provocative is very loaded and often gives primacy to men's desires over the actual intentions of women, men's desire setting the meaning of women's actions and appearance, silencing women in effect.
https://philpapers.org/archive/WOLPDA-3.pdf

The concept of provocative dress reinforces two kinds of objectification. First, revealing women’s clothing is construed as signifying sex by drawing men’s attention to women’s sexualized body parts; a woman’s breasts, buttocks and legs can mean “sex” regardless of the personal desires of the woman in question.111 This is a form of “fungibility,” a form of objectification discussed by Martha Nussbaum that involves the “reduction of a person to a set of body parts.”112 Second, and perhaps more troublesome, the idea of provocative dress illustrates what Rae Langton describes as the denial of autonomy through the affirmation of autonomy.113 When a woman’s outfit is described as provocative, she is reduced to a depersonalized sexual object or collection of sexual body parts. In addition, a specific subjective desire is attributed to her—the desire for sexual attention from men. This attribution is not a form of respect for a woman’s autonomy. Instead, it denies her autonomy by undermining the credibility and authority of her actual desires, even if she explicitly and repeatedly denies the attributed desire. Her stated preferences, if inconsistent with the intentions and desires that men attribute to her, are dismissed as not reflecting what she “really wants”—she says “no,” but her outfit says “yes.” Thus, it is men’s interpretations of her desires and intentions that are taken as authoritative. Women’s actual spoken desires and intentions regarding men’s sexual attention are silenced.

To which the idea of an uncontrollable and prokved male sexuality as basis of sexual violence serves to legitimize restrictions on women instead of men.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2439&context=facpub

The willingness of courts to perpetuate the notion of the male uncontrollable urge through the guise of protectionism obfuscates the real sexism involved. The decisions discussed in this article merely serve to maintain male power. They expect women to operate around men in a limited role and within the male-defined system. The notion of an uncontrollable urge, which is provoked by women, excuses men for their behavior and reinforces the social and political tendency to blame the victim. 184 It perpetuates the idea that men's violence against women is inevitable and thereby plays upon women's fear for their own physical safety. 185 The perceived threat of rape, and of invoking the male urge, functions much like a protection racket in which men protect their women from the abuse of other men. 80 Mae West once said, "Every man I meet wants to protect me. Can't figure out what from."187

http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4448180&fileOId=4461660

Patriarchy is a system of beliefs that fundamentally asserts the supremacy of the male (Brinson, 1992:361). It exist through people’s upholding of the structures without questioning them, because it has become a system of norms (Thomsson, ElvinNowak, 2013:38) that include myths, rules and assumptions which with time are taken for granted (Ibid, 2013:30). Men’s position of dominance is normalized through language (Berrington, Jones, 2002:308) and that process includes a normalizing of male aggression. Sexual violence is constructed as a risk that women can protect themselves against, if acting responsible (Ibid:317). By that, women are socialized into fear of male violence (Ibid:319) and thus become subjects of violence and objects of fear (Marcus, 1992:398), the so called subjection process (Ibid:394). Due to that, women are expected to monitor and restrict their behavior (Berrington, Jones, 2002:317) and even hinder their movements in an attempt to ensure the safety of their bodies (Edwards et al, 2011:767). Dr. Eileen Berrington and Dr. Helen Jones, mean that the relationship between the patriarchal construction of the society and the existence of male violence can be understood as part of a system of power (Berrington, Jones, 2002:308).
...
Rape myths exist in symbiosis with cultural stereotypes of “ideal” behavior for women and men (Brinson, 1992:361). Questioning the behavior of the woman before the rape is the same thing as saying that something she did provoked a man to rape her. By talking about being in the “wrong” place, wearing the “wrong” clothes and acting in the “wrong” way presupposes that there is a right way for women to behave (Ibid:362). These “norms of femininity” as Berrington and Jones chose to call them, describe the cultural attributes and expectations assigned to women (Berrington, Jones, 2002:309). The horror of rape is not that it steals something from women, but that it makes women into things to be taken (Marcus, 1992:399). The production of a norm of behavior is a form of power that regulate, control and normalize and aim to produce docile and useful bodies (Henderson, 2013:238).This creates an assumption that that women can, when behaving correct and responsible, avoid the violence of men (Berrington, Jones, 2002:307). Henderson claims that historically women have been told to avoid rape by restricting their choices, movements and behavior (Henderson, 2013:233).

Basically, the idea of women being provocative is the basis on which women's autonomy in the public space is restricted, legitimizing a paternalistic attitude towards women to protect them from the hostile men.
This is me speculating where the subject could go as I think your point is left unknown and not fleshed out.

We have politicians that represent an entire nations of people with diverse views regardless of how well or poorly they believe those representatives effectively represent their views and values.
But I get your point that there isn't homogeneity in regards to women as a self conscious collective movement. Which is exactly why identity is at best a heuristic but not a accurate basis of meaningful relationship between people as we see in the abstract representation of polls that arbitrarily group ethnic groups in things like their votes.

Feminism as a political project in the west is with the rest of any possible movement are in a peculiar stage having objectified their liberal variants in society to varying degrees but not having exhausted itself in other strands (ie liberalism doesn't solve the woman question in the end, but a stage).
https://uniteyouthdublin.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/john_storey_cultural_theory_and_popular_culturebookzz-org.pdf

Winship’s comments bring us to the complex question of post-feminism. Does the term imply that the moment of feminism has been and gone; that it is now a movement of the past? Certainly, there are those who would wish to suggest that this is the case. According to Winship, ‘if it means anything useful’, the term refers to the way in which the ‘boundaries between feminists and non-feminists have become fuzzy’ (149). This is to a large extent due to the way in which ‘with the “success” of feminism some feminist ideas no longer have an oppositional charge but have become part of many people’s, not just a minority’s, common sense’ (ibid.). Of course this does not mean that all feminist demands have been met (far from it), and that feminism is now redundant. On the contrary, ‘it suggests that feminism no longer has a simple coherence around a set of easily defined principles . . . but instead is a much richer, more diverse and contradictory mix than it ever was in the 1970s’ (ibid.).

One issue is the identity politics where it's about whether someone is a feminist instead of what is feminism supposed to mean. Many values that were struggled for by feminists have become normative for many who don't think themselves feminists in any sense, basically liberals, which was once radical/revolutionary in regards to women's place in society.

But I strongly agree with you in regards that it's not men vs women but it's not my view that many feminists view the problem in such a way.
Which in part why there are initiatives to engage men in regards to the negative sides of certain gender roles and expectations that in some conditions become obsolete in their social basis.
http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/Engaging_Men_In_Gender_Initiatives_What_Change_Agents_Need_To_Know.pdf

[Albert]

Indeed, there are women who do as much to men.
Though what I'm unclear about is that it is necessarily as prevalent among women or whether it has the same function. In which much of the harassment towards men is also perpetuated by men.
For example, men don't necessarily experience harassment in the same way as women do and although them being a target may be itself a function of enforced regulation of social norms. As sexual harassment towards women itself functions under the guise that if women only restrained themselves to the good behaviour expected of women that they wouldn't be subject to harm.

Women's harassment and abuse differs to that of men. Mainly because it is psychological in nature, done through manipulation and things like gaslighting. For example this behaviour can be observed in prison (I saw a documentary of it), men who can not rape or take advantage of other inmates openly employ different techniques of coercion and grooming overtime. This is how women's abuse is mostly in character, hence it is hard to spot and recognize. Also with modern cultural atmosphere where a woman can not do any wrong, women's abuse goes on completely unrecognized in many cases. Mind you a lot of feminist do this, where they simply deny even the possibly of abuse by women. Most recent example as of Asia Argento.

But here we are speaking not just about abuse, but creating "rape culture" and unhealthy relation environment between men and women. Women have a great part to play in this that is not being recognized, again thanks to feminists who have taken monopoly on dictating to us how relationships should work.

As I was giving example of how a man can be impressed by a bad woman and in return come to think all women are like that bad woman who left such impression on him. This aspect is not recognized today, in past traditional societies it was. As promiscuous women were seen as not only doing wrong to themselves but also to men that they seduce. Why so, because they teach them norm by example that opens them up to bad ways, that then they might in return bring to other women who might not be corrupt by bad examples.

For example a women might be perverted sexually; thus through example she will open a man up to perversion, if he begins to enjoy perversion that she will show him, he might expect that of the next women he meets. This cycle of abusive behaviour and perversion was recognized in the past, in modernity thanks to feminism who has taken it upon itself to dictate our social cultural relations, it is not.

I'm not even touching the subject of how mothers impact their sons.

I think the issue is that no matter what a woman does in regards to her attire, it does nothing to displace the view of some that her value is based in her sexuality. Covering up would only regress the issue in regards to helping to normalize women's bodies as not inherently sexual, but often seen as sexual as a result of desire projected onto them, which hiding one's body exacerbates. One is only naked because one wears clothes, nudity doesn't exist when it's more normative to show ones body but not necessarily in a sexual context but even in just a practical way like it being hot.

But there are indeed women who make money and cater to men's desire of them. But the basis of such seems in part related to the commodification of relations inherent to capitalism having expanded the market over society.
When money becomes irrelevant to sexuality though, I don't think status will be as significant as we can already see it in a minor form in regards to powerful women who are just as sexual at men without consequence.
Although many women who are of less status and positional power suffer severe consequences for being sexual beings.

Perhaps you need to be clearer in regards to how women's attire is meant to be implicated in 'rape culture'. As there can be a lot to unpack there, for example the common notion that women's attire is provocative is very loaded and often gives primacy to men's desires over the actual intentions of women, men's desire setting the meaning of women's actions and appearance, silencing women in effect.

Basically, the idea of women being provocative is the basis on which women's autonomy in the public space is restricted, legitimizing a paternalistic attitude towards women to protect them from the hostile men.
This is me speculating where the subject could go as I think your point is left unknown and not fleshed out.

We have politicians that represent an entire nations of people with diverse views regardless of how well or poorly they believe those representatives effectively represent their views and values.
But I get your point that there isn't homogeneity in regards to women as a self conscious collective movement. Which is exactly why identity is at best a heuristic but not a accurate basis of meaningful relationship between people as we see in the abstract representation of polls that arbitrarily group ethnic groups in things like their votes.

Firstly, it is not men who dictate women's attire, it is mother nature who have designed women and men.

For example take a handsome man, if he puts on a bathing suit meant for summer beach yet goes into a business meeting like that it would be out of place and provocative. This is not patriarchy or impractical social norms that prohibit him from doing this, it is practical reason for this. As at business meeting we need to be concentrated on business not on an appeal of a handsome man that will stand out at the the meeting.

Feminist fail to grasp that it was never men's of view how women should dress that dictates modest dress code, but nature itself.

Women's beauty speaks of fertility to us, so when men see it it invokes such response in them, it is instilled so by nature. Men nor women can control that. In fact women who have bad character take advantage of this, by purposely displaying their "futility" to entice man and to have an edge over other women. Hence the common stereotype that such women are shallow.

Women's fertility ideally should only be in display for a man who she will start a family with. For he is the only one who needs to see it. This gives us the question then, why women need to display this to other men? What is the purpose. I suspect it is the attention it brings mostly, they enjoy what it brings to them. Yet the consequences of that are negative, that they do not like.

In fact I would go further, vulgar attire is actually abuse of men, for men can not control their response. All these women dressed in such attire are actually abusers. In fact they are in a way they rape men in this way themselves.

Edit:

But I strongly agree with you in regards that it's not men vs women but it's not my view that many feminists view the problem in such a way.
Which in part why there are initiatives to engage men in regards to the negative sides of certain gender roles and expectations that in some conditions become obsolete in their social basis.

No you do not agree, nor do you understand. For you say you agree but then you accuse men of dictating women's attire.

You do not get it, feminist reforms have produced literally hell. I was reading recently, I forget now where exactly which city it was in Britain, but there half of the kids were growing up in single mother homes. Feminism has destroyed families, lives, future of children. Where has in British history a war has ever destroyed so many families? This is the legacy of feminist reforms.

[Godstud]

You do not get it, feminist reforms have produced literally hell.

Pure melodrama.

For you say you agree but then you accuse men of dictating women's attire.

If we tell them what to or not to wear, we are dictating their attire.

I was reading recently, I forget now where exactly which city it was in Britain, but there half of the kids were growing up in single mother homes. Feminism has destroyed families, lives, future of children. Where has in British history a war has ever destroyed so many families? This is the legacy of feminist reforms.

You probably read it on an Incel or MGTOW website. You should really stop reading that trash.

[Wellsy]

Women's harassment and abuse differs to that of men. Mainly because it is psychological in nature, done through manipulation and things like gaslighting. For example this behaviour can be observed in prison (I saw a documentary of it), men who can not rape or take advantage of other inmates openly employ different techniques of coercion and grooming overtime. This is how women's abuse is mostly in character, hence it is hard to spot and recognize. Also with modern cultural atmosphere where a woman can not do any wrong, women's abuse goes on completely unrecognized in many cases. Mind you a lot of feminist do this, where they simply deny even the possibly of abuse by women. Most recent example as of Asia Argento.

I was amused how your exemplar for women's abuse of men is men in prison with other men but I see the point that those who can't use violence effectively seek other means.
To which it has been true of women historically that they use psychological means.

Spoiler: show

http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jackson/sex.and.gender/Readings/DownSoLong--Aggression.pdf

Because of their subordinate status, women had to rely on the subtler techniques of psychological warfare, while men could indulge in physical intimidation and violence. Women have lacked weapons and combat experience, they have been economically dependent on men, they have had no autonomous organization, and they have been unsupported by male dominated political and legal systems. As a result, men have known that they need not fear social retribution and that they could get help from other men if they needed it, while women have known they were isolated and vulnerable to punishment. Men have had and used coercive power. Women have had to use the means at their command: sexual resistance has been one and psychological aggression another.

The opposition between female and male sexuality has also caused the sexes to express their aggression differently. Owing to gender inequality and conflict combined with the unavoidability of sex, women's sexuality in our society came to emphasize sexual resistance while men's sexuality embodied an obsessive search for sex and conquest. In consequence, the aggressive impulses of each sex toward the other became attached to the objective of violating the other's sexuality. By rape, men can overwhelm women's efforts at sexual resistance, eliminating women's control over their sexuality and robbing them of their attached sense of integrity. Through castration women can carry sexual resistance to the extreme of denying men any continued sexuality. Both sexes thus express their aggression toward each other by attacking the source of their deepest resentments and each other's power. But men have monopolized coercive power in society and therefore only they have used physical abuse ranging from harassment through battering to rape.

This does not mean that men have been free to use violence against women without sanction. Men have always tried to protect their dependent females against the violence of other men, or they at least promised protection if women accepted their man's dominance. And displays of unpredictable, unrestrained male violence against women that threatened public security have commonly provoked suppressive efforts by the surrounding community. But men, nonetheless, have had a liberty to intimidate and physically abuse women dependent on them and women lacking a male protector. Women have not possessed a similar liberty to use physical aggression toward men, because they have been socially subordinate.

The pattern of aggression between the sexes has reinforced women's subordination. Women's use of psychological ploys to belittle and frustrate men have probably been effective in reducing the quality of men's lives. But it has also increased men's desires to control women without having any significant effect on men's social power. In contrast, men's use of physical aggression, while it surely similarly increased women's anger at men, did effectively reduce women's social power. Male violence toward women comprises a small minority of men who commit violent rape, a sizeable minority who beat their wives and other women, the majority of men who sometimes harass women, and all men who accept and legitimate male violence. Since women never have known which men might commit serious violence or what conditions might prompt any individual man to use violence, they have lived in a terror of men that has circumscribed their lives and made them willing to accept dependence for safety.

Because the imbalance in violence between the sexes owes more to inequality than it contributes, the increases in gender equality over the past two centuries has included a decline in men's liberty to use unreciprocated violence against women. We may be more aware of male violence now, but that is because it no longer appears legitimate. Also, when men had an unchallenged capacity to intimidate women with the threat of violence, they may not have often needed to carry out the threat for it to be effective. Men today have considerably less freedom to use violence against wives, daughters, or women without attachments to men. Violence and intimidation persist, however, and they cannot be expected to disappear while inequality continues.

I question the idea of women can do no wrong and speculate that if it is prevalent it is because it's based in the idealization characteristic of traditional views about women.
Where there is the positive idealization of what a woman is supposed to be which is also the basis on which hostility is directed towards women for breaking with this idealization.
Which is what the purpose of making women fear male violence for engaging in certain behaviours seen as inappropriate to their gender functions to do, to enforce compliance to gender norms and relates well to earlier paper about harassment being a negotiation of gender (power) relations.
Might have to make more concrete the claim that feminists deny women can be terrible, especially if your example is a celebrity who wishes to reject an accusation against herself.
There being a difference between the position of 'I didn't do that' or 'I did nothing wrong' compared with 'women do not abuse men'. In which case I think the distinction that comes about is that women can and do abuse men, but it has it's own qualifications in regards to how prevalent and in what manner.
Like sexual abuse by women does occur, but in many cases the abuse is via a man such as a boyfriend of an abusive mother. I know of such people with crazy mothers who subjected their children to trauma in their psychological crazy way as well as to physical/sexual abuse by men. It is quite a common story here in New Mexico of mothers who are addicted to drugs and negligent subjecting their children to abuses of others.

But here we are speaking not just about abuse, but creating "rape culture" and unhealthy relation environment between men and women. Women have a great part to play in this that is not being recognized, again thanks to feminists who have taken monopoly on dictating to us how relationships should work.

This is pretty bold a view and vague on the exact nature of how relationships are being dictated and how some feminist organization or ideals have been the causal and directing influence.

As I was giving example of how a man can be impressed by a bad woman and in return come to think all women are like that bad woman who left such impression on him. This aspect is not recognized today, in past traditional societies it was. As promiscuous women were seen as not only doing wrong to themselves but also to men that they seduce. Why so, because they teach them norm by example that opens them up to bad ways, that then they might in return bring to other women who might not be corrupt by bad examples.

I think it is recognized that men can be mistreated by women and even be sympathetic to them except to the extent they come to demonize women as a whole because of their personal experiences with women.
People aren't sympathetic to that bitterness.
I'm not sure people are unaware the emotional recklessness that can come from those who disregard the attachments people can make in their pursuit of sex, which is quite applicable to men who play with women's feelings in order to bed them only. It is the dishonesty that is repugnant and is an issue in either sex.
Part of women's sexuality being a negative was based in resources being allocated, the more powerful a woman is, the less people are likely to judge a woman's sexuality relative to a poorer woman.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-tirado/why-poor-peoples-bad-decisions-make-perfect-sense_b_4326233.html

We’re aware that we are not “having kids,” we’re “breeding.” We have kids for much the same reasons that I imagine rich people do. Urge to propagate and all. Nobody likes poor people procreating, but they judge abortion even harder.

In fact, women in positions of power end up behaving like men in positions of power, as their behaviour is reflective of the social nature of their position rather than a gendered essence.

For example a women might be perverted sexually; thus through example she will open a man up to perversion, if he begins to enjoy perversion that she will show him, he might expect that of the next women he meets. This cycle of abusive behaviour and perversion was recognized in the past, in modernity thanks to feminism who has taken it upon itself to dictate our social cultural relations, it is not.

I'm not even touching the subject of how mothers impact their sons.

This is hard to judge in regards to the language (perverted sexuality) and lack of reference to actual behaviour.
Perhaps this might help in clarifying your use of the word perversion:

AS STRANGE as it might seem, psychology really cannot say much about human sexuality. It’s true that psychology can be used to treat sexual dysfunction, and psychologists know that coerced sex, such as child abuse or rape, leaves lasting emotional scars on the victims. But psychology really cannot offer much advice to consenting adults as to what sexual activities are appropriate or inappropriate. Not much, that is, except this: You can get into all kinds of trouble if you fail to understand something about the nature of perversion and love.

Perversion. This is a word not heard much in today’s world. The verb to pervert literally means “to lead astray” or “to misdirect,” and perversion usually is used in the moral sense to refer to something that leads a person away from what is good or right. But I will be using the word in the psychological sense of something that leads a person away from a psychological goal.

As an example, consider the nature of alcohol abuse. Psychologically speaking, alcoholics drink in order to avoid the pain of facing up to and making amends for all the times they have failed to take responsibility for their lives. Hence the abuse of alcohol can be called a perversion because it leads a person away from the true aim of dealing with the guilt and into a drunken state of illusory well-being.

To be clever, we could say, then, that the point of a perversion is to always miss the point.

With more direct language, we can say that a perversion leads you away from the true depths of your emotional pain—and from the psychological healing that could happen if you were to work therapeutically with that pain—by distracting you with something apparently pleasurable.

The connection between sex and perversions is found in love. But when talking about love we need to be clear what we are really talking about.

But here the idea of perversion being caused by women is complicated in this case as many people are perverse in regards to being led astray from what they need, instead pursuing what they want.
So for example people may try to get love through sex but be entirely empty, whether that be man or woman.

But the way you talk about sexual perversion it makes me think of things like anal sex.
Where might be more specific in regards to the causal relation between such sexual acts.
Where we see how boys look at porn and end up pressuring young girls to do certain sexual acts.
Teenage Boys Pressure Girls to Have Anal Sex to Impress Other Boys, Say Researchers
But the wrong in your example seems relatively minor without further explanation, where it's left implied that there would be a problem in men having expanded sexual wants and thus expectations of future women rather than be satisfied with less sexual novelty.

Perhaps expand on what you mean feminism dictates social relations specifically and how it relates to these points you're making in being problems between the sexes.
It makes it sound as if feminism is a government intervention into everyone's relationships where might be able to plausibly speak in regards to certain laws that have been introduced.

Firstly, it is not men who dictate women's attire, it is mother nature who have designed women and men.

For example take a handsome man, if he puts on a bathing suit meant for summer beach yet goes into a business meeting like that it would be out of place and provocative. This is not patriarchy or impractical social norms that prohibit him from doing this, it is practical reason for this. As at business meeting we need to be concentrated on business not on an appeal of a handsome man that will stand out at the the meeting.

Feminist fail to grasp that it was never men's of view how women should dress that dictates modest dress code, but nature itself.

Women's beauty speaks of fertility to us, so when men see it it invokes such response in them, it is instilled so by nature. Men nor women can control that. In fact women who have bad character take advantage of this, by purposely displaying their "futility" to entice man and to have an edge over other women. Hence the common stereotype that such women are shallow.

Women's fertility ideally should only be in display for a man who she will start a family with. For he is the only one who needs to see it. This gives us the question then, why women need to display this to other men? What is the purpose. I suspect it is the attention it brings mostly, they enjoy what it brings to them. Yet the consequences of that are negative, that they do not like.

In fact I would go further, vulgar attire is actually abuse of men, for men can not control their response. All these women dressed in such attire are actually abusers. In fact they are in a way they rape men in this way themselves.

Your point of nature dictating women's attire seems to more directly boil down to:
1. Men and women are attracted to one another sexually on a biological basis
2. That this attraction dictates social dress codes

I think sexual desire as having a biological basis is acceptable viewpoint but there is a gap between the subjective state of sexual desire and dress codes.
And I'm not sure how well your example of a handsome man in a bathing suit stands up as a example of inappropriateness of clothing based on women's sexual desire as comparable to that of women's attire being provocative of men's desire.
In that I don't imagine his decision to wear bathers would be described nor necessarily seen as provocative as much as foolish, ridiculous, silly, stupid. If anything he might be seen as sexually aggressive rather than trying to evoke something.

Indeed, women's beauty irrespective of their attire (as attire can only emphasize to varying degrees but not entirely hide one's attractiveness) can evoke desire in men. But the problem here isn't men's desire, there's nothing problematic about people having such desires. Just as in the earlier post the example of men thinking about women sexually wasn't the problem but the need to make a woman known that she is being viewed as such outside of any context where it would be appropriate (an established mutual relationship of some sort).

You should read the paper to consider it's arguments such as how the description of women's attire is implicated in the function of men dictating upon women's attire through a basis of fear irrespective of their own intentions in regards to what they wear.
That unless we are to assume men are comparable to animals and aren't human with a regards for rationality and self control. Then men can still behave towards women appropriately irrespective of their desire showing respect through one's behaviour. Basically, desire isn't the distinction between men who do or don't harass and so it's an empty road to try and conflate the two which are distinctive enough in character that we can speak of men who do and do not harass women and presumably all tend to feel sexual desire for some women.

This is why I find the point of stating the the existence of desire doesn't explain social dress codes being restricted, because wo/men can still be respectful even whilst desiring someone.
Though this in itself wouldn't displace that it can be inappropriate to be dressed in certain ways in the workplace, just that it isn't a lack of control that we cover women up.
If anything this sort of reasoning ends up ruining itself because its clothes that lead to the covetting of what's beneath them more so. It exacerbates the view of women's bodies as inherently sexual rather than seen as sexual based on one's desire of them. Basically desire becomes seen as something inherent to women's bodies rather than originating in one's self.

One would expect a standard of respect to come to the forefront in one's behaviour if one is interested in flirting, by an intense attention to the other person's social cues. But the silencing of women by prescribing intention to a woman's attire over her actual body language and expressed wants/intentions isn't part of any respect or even reasonable desire for the woman as it actively ignores her as it's not about her as much as it's about himself.

The question to ask in regards to why women should be concerned for dangers in regards to what they wear isn't the uncontrollable male desire that stops them from being respectful. But that we live in a society in which such harassment of women in public is normalized and the explanations for it that effectively make out men to be animals without a sense of reason and self control.
https://philpapers.org/archive/WOLPDA-3.pdf

Even if it is unreasonable for men to assume that a scantily dressed woman is seeking sexual attention, perhaps women might still be criticized for being imprudent for wearing clothing that they know is likely to be interpreted as sexually inviting. This argument differs from that described above, in which men are viewed as less blameworthy because of their beliefs about women’s sexual intentions. To blame a woman for being imprudent is to criticize her for not exercising sufficient self-protection, but that does not mitigate the responsibility or blameworthiness of men who sexually harass her. As an analogy, consider a case in which an African-American man talks to a white woman in the segregated South. In those circumstances, he might be violently attacked for speaking to her. Perhaps his behavior could be criticized on the grounds that he shows insufficient care for his own safety. But does that mean that if he is attacked, his attackers’ actions should be excused? Does his imprudence diminish their moral responsibility? No. The question we should be asking is: Why was it dangerous for him to speak to a white woman in the first place? Talking to a white woman is not inherently dangerous. Doing so in the segregated South was dangerous only because of preexisting racist beliefs and practices that made an otherwise normal exercise of personal autonomy extremely risky. If the African-American man is attacked, the correct focus of blame and responsibility should be the men who attacked him and the social conditions that created the threat of attack.

Likewise, there is nothing inherently dangerous about wearing revealing clothing. In fact, there is nothing inherently sexual about such clothing106 or about women’s bodies. For example, in some cultures, including some indigenous Australian cultures, women’s breasts are not sexualized, and topless female attire is common.107 In Western culture, too, there are many contexts in which revealing and tight-fitting clothing—and even nudity—is not sexualized, such as during drawing classes with nude models, and at dance rehearsals, swimming classes, and the gym. When and if revealing clothing and women’s body parts are sexualized depends on a complex set of factors including context as well as religious and social meanings. Thus, it is only potentially dangerous for women to wear revealing or tight-fitting outfits because of entrenched sexist beliefs and practices. These beliefs and practices include the idea that women who wear tight or revealing outfits want sexual attention, that women are “asking for it,” that men are entitled to sexually approach women, and that women are responsible for men’s sexual behavior. These preexisting practices unfairly influence women’s decisions about what to wear with the fear of “sending the wrong message” and the threat of unwanted sexual attention.

Furthermore, controlling or predicting how others might interpret what one wears is difficult, if not impossible. As such, a woman’s best attempts to “de-sexualize” her outfits may be unsuccessful. For example, it is quite possible—indeed likely—that Lara Logan, the reporter who was criticized for “dressing provocatively in inappropriate locations,”108 believed that her outfits were appropriate and not “too sexy.” As a result, women’s clothing choices are not only shaped by their personal values and identity, but also by the need to manage the social perception of the depersonalized female body as a collection of sexually charged features (breasts, hips, buttocks). A woman may see herself simultaneously as an individual whose actions express her subjective values and preferences and as a depersonalized object of male sexual attention.109 Since a woman cannot fully control a man’s sexualized interpretation of her clothing, a woman’s sense of ownership over her body and her clothing choices may be overshadowed and undermined by the threat of unwanted sexual attention.

Which somehow doesn't incur restrictions on men but in fact on women. As it's about controlling and restricting women's autonomy and inoculating them with a sense that if they only behaved appropriately they'd avoid men's sexual aggression, but this is an illusion of safety from men's harassment.
Because it's as mentioned in that paper on harassment of men, about gender relations which more abstractly is about power relations. Men feel harassed when their power as men is threatened, and women feel harassed when they are made to feel less powerful on the basis of their sex.

I can't say I agree in regards to women being sexy some sort of offense to men as to me it seems men not taking responsibility in managing themselves than the problem that women are attractive.
I would suggest such men learn to manage their emotions/feelings rather than displace it as other people's responsibility. Especially if they try and excuse their own behaviour as being the fault of others causing an uncontrollable desire in them.

Edit:
No you do not agree, nor do you understand. For you say you agree but then you accuse men of dictating women's attire.

You do not get it, feminist reforms have produced literally hell. I was reading recently, I forget now where exactly which city it was in Britain, but there half of the kids were growing up in single mother homes. Feminism has destroyed families, lives, future of children. Where has in British history a war has ever destroyed so many families? This is the legacy of feminist reforms.

What I agreed with was that it's not so much a case of men versus women on this issues based in your points about how women can be considered reactionary in their views and behaviour.
We of course disagree on much else but that was the nature of my agreement where you seemed to emphasize that it's not strictly a division between the sexes demographically but of their views in regards to gender/power relations.

What reforms are you speaking of?
I'm expecting you to perhaps speak of no fault divorce to which I would say its existence only reveals the extent of the problem in family units. As the cause of divorce isn't found in it's existence as one can desire separation without being able to divorce someone.
Such that there should be less of a fetishization with the form of the family unit to the negelect of the substance of the relationships of members within the family.
Otherwise one would hide the existence of dysfunctional families under idealizations for being a married couple and kids over that over a single mother, whose detrimental outcomes for their children can often be the result of poverty and the lack of support given to them. Where some men and the state freeload on women sticking to their responsibility to raise a child and try to avoid incurring any costs on themselves for the child's wellbeing.
To which I would implore you to investigate the issue rather than give statements that have no explanatory value, nothing is explained by saying feminism caused this as one is still left asking how.

[ccdan]

No, there's no "rape culture" in the west, as there's no rape culture anywhere else.

Such terms and ideas like "rape culture" have been invented and promoted by extremist feminists & their supporters(various SJW wackos)

There's however a very dangerous culture that's being promoted right now: FALSE VICTIMIZATION(claiming to have been harmed somehow by some harmless/trivial deed/action of someone else, without being able to objectively prove that the harm is real) and obviously feminists are among the most vocal promoters of this insanity.

[The trigger]

Muslim gangs 8n euro nations have been raping women for some time

[Godstud]

No, there's no "rape culture" in the west, as there's no rape culture anywhere else.

It's quite evident that you have no idea what it means. Try reading the thread a bit, as your opinion has already been refuted.

There's however a very dangerous culture that's being promoted right now: FALSE VICTIMIZATION(claiming to have been harmed somehow by some harmless/trivial deed/action of someone else, without being able to objectively prove that the harm is real) and obviously feminists are among the most vocal promoters of this insanity.

Women being raped far exceed the tiny amount of false claims. Your claim is rubbish, and patently false.

Thank for promoting rape culture, ccdan.