[Question] Bikini Armour! when? :)

[kurfu.5623]

I wouldn't mind bikini armor being added.

Not sure if I would actually use it though; it's just that I'm mature enough to get upset over people playing the game in a way that I may not personally enjoy.

[Mathias.9657]

Even their bikini armor would have buttcape because its all ANet is capable of designing

[kapri.5918]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@kapri.5918 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@kapri.5918 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@kapri.5918 said:[snip]

Just going on the record, I fundamentally disagree with pretty much that whole post but I'd rather not go into such tangents here. I think it's suffice to say that limiting what options an avatar in a game can wear isn't going to change social norms nor is it going to protect or aid anyone. At best, it caters to the sensibilities of certain individuals that wish not to see such things while also losing out on easy potential profit from those that would indeed purchase the cosmetic.

So...in the end, let's let ArenaNet ignore the biggest factor that makes this game great and that is the overall depth of lore it has to it. Are there things in the game that clash with "realism" and logical outfitting? Yes. Does the fact that I do not mention or talk of them mean that I do not bear them in mind? No. Should ArenaNet implement a bikini armor or armor skin? Totally up to them. And whether or not you want to continue this discussion, I'll leave you with this. Research the MMO Scarlet Blade. How far is ArenaNet willing to go for profit? I wish you well.

You keep adding "realism" into your argument. It doesn't help you.

No, it does not. Especially since this is a game where this is the only point that would hold up having bikinis as armor. And you keep dodging my arguments. That doesn't help you.

What argument? The only other portion of the post that had an argument had to do with depth of lore and likely immersion. Are you arguing that swim suits don't exist in the lore of GW2? Or that magic predicates the form that their clothing takes? Or that swim suit skins/outfits is the straw that breaks the camel's back?

I'm waiting to hear a better statement, hopefully not bogged down with other political messages, of what the game needs and doesn't need. But while saying that, I'm also not petty enough to press a dialog when there really is no room for it, for example, with @"Dante.1763".

First and foremost, if you think my argument is somehow political then you have blatantly missed my stance on this. This topic and the issue that I have is Bikini Armor. Armor being the key word. The stuff one wears when going into battle. Do not have an issue with having a bikini in the game but with no armor value and just as a cosmetic...but as actual armor I find it horrendous. You want it as a skin...go for it. I have made my statements. You have neither addressed or acknowledged them. Each time you have responded has been a deflection or a blatant different thing. The only point raised has been that "it could work cause this game isn't real." To which I say Scarlet Blade. Apparently, we seem to be done. Good day.

[Belyar.6421]

i'm not against the idea if male characters can get similar armors too.

[Menaki.6329]

I hate bikini armour, this not hot or sexy, this is just ridiculus and I hope this "armor" will never ever come ingame. Such outfits make me avoid those game. They show me that they have produced those games for teenage male only with no respect for women. An armor has to protect the body and not to give wet dreams for males.

[kharmin.7683]

@Belyar.6421 said:i'm not against the idea if male characters can get similar armors too.

I'd rather not see male characters in bikini armor. No thanks.

[Astralporing.1957]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Belyar.6421 said:i'm not against the idea if male characters can get similar armors too.

I'd rather not see male characters in bikini armor. No thanks.Well, that's equality.

[Hashberry.4510]

Scarlet Blade, heh. Thanks for the chuckle.

[Dante.1763]

@Mil.3562 said:All I want for Christmas from ANet is a swimsuit and you guys have to turn it into a 10 page debate on sexism and feminism? Can't a girl get something nice in GW2? -.-

Well, hey, im one and im against it, also youd have a much higher chance getting one added in the summer, as they are probably gonna be adding a ton of actual winter clothes here soon. On top of that, i know its disappointing, but topics like this will always be debated in modern culture.

[Leo G.4501]

@kapri.5918 said:First and foremost, if you think my argument is somehow political then you have blatantly missed my stance on this.

I was talking about your previous posts that wasn't the one quoted had political slants. The post I quoted didn't have much of an argument at all.

@kapri.5918 said:This topic and the issue that I have is Bikini Armor. Armor being the key word.

Perhaps you don't understand the mechanics of GW2 cosmetics. Cosmetics aren't armor. Cosmetics are SKINS that you put on armor. Armor is merely the quantifiable object in a player's inventory that holds stat points. If the prospect of a skin that is designed to be open and expose the avatar's body is the problem, then perhaps I could leave you be, but it seems you're complaining about semantics.

@kapri.5918 said:The stuff one wears when going into battle. Do not have an issue with having a bikini in the game but with no armor value and just as a cosmetic...but as actual armor I find it horrendous.

And this is the argument of realism. It doesn't work. What do you even gain by trying to prohibit a character from using a specific skin to fight in? It's extremely petty.

@kapri.5918 said:You want it as a skin...go for it. I have made my statements. You have neither addressed or acknowledged them. Each time you have responded has been a deflection or a blatant different thing. The only point raised has been that "it could work cause this game isn't real." To which I say Scarlet Blade. Apparently, we seem to be done. Good day.

To sum up your argument: "You want to look like a half-naked bimbo on my screen? Well I want to punish you for it. Good day."

Bye Felicia.

[kapri.5918]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@kapri.5918 said:First and foremost, if you think my argument is somehow political then you have blatantly missed my stance on this.

I was talking about your previous posts that wasn't the one quoted had political slants. The post I quoted didn't have much of an argument at all.

@kapri.5918 said:This topic and the issue that I have is Bikini Armor. Armor being the key word.

Perhaps you don't understand the mechanics of GW2 cosmetics. Cosmetics aren't armor. Cosmetics are

SKINS

that you put on armor. Armor is merely the quantifiable object in a player's inventory that holds stat points. If the prospect of a skin that is designed to be open and expose the avatar's body is the problem, then perhaps I could leave you be, but it seems you're complaining about semantics.

@kapri.5918 said:The stuff one wears when going into battle. Do not have an issue with having a bikini in the game but with no armor value and just as a cosmetic...but as actual armor I find it horrendous.

And this is the argument of realism. It doesn't work. What do you even gain by trying to prohibit a character from using a specific skin to fight in? It's extremely petty.

@kapri.5918 said:You want it as a skin...go for it. I have made my statements. You have neither addressed or acknowledged them. Each time you have responded has been a deflection or a blatant different thing. The only point raised has been that "it could work cause this game isn't real." To which I say Scarlet Blade. Apparently, we seem to be done. Good day.

To sum up your argument: "You want to look like a half-naked bimbo on my screen? Well I want to punish you for it. Good day."

Bye Felicia.

Hopefully I can make this clear. I gave my reasons on why it is wrong to me and how GW2/fantasy lore is. You seem to have thought that I wish you punished for having a bikini "skin." I honestly do not. Each person in this game wants their characters to be unique in their own way. If that involves their character wearing a bikini then who am I to judge? I am tired of saying this and being punished for it...so I apologize if you felt that I was being offensive.

[Leo G.4501]

@kapri.5918 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@kapri.5918 said:First and foremost, if you think my argument is somehow political then you have blatantly missed my stance on this.

I was talking about your previous posts that wasn't the one quoted had political slants. The post I quoted didn't have much of an argument at all.

@kapri.5918 said:This topic and the issue that I have is Bikini Armor. Armor being the key word.

Perhaps you don't understand the mechanics of GW2 cosmetics. Cosmetics aren't armor. Cosmetics are

SKINS

that you put on armor. Armor is merely the quantifiable object in a player's inventory that holds stat points. If the prospect of a skin that is designed to be open and expose the avatar's body is the problem, then perhaps I could leave you be, but it seems you're complaining about semantics.

@kapri.5918 said:The stuff one wears when going into battle. Do not have an issue with having a bikini in the game but with no armor value and just as a cosmetic...but as actual armor I find it horrendous.

And this is the argument of realism. It doesn't work. What do you even gain by trying to prohibit a character from using a specific skin to fight in? It's extremely petty.

@kapri.5918 said:You want it as a skin...go for it. I have made my statements. You have neither addressed or acknowledged them. Each time you have responded has been a deflection or a blatant different thing. The only point raised has been that "it could work cause this game isn't real." To which I say Scarlet Blade. Apparently, we seem to be done. Good day.

To sum up your argument: "You want to look like a half-naked bimbo on my screen? Well I want to punish you for it. Good day."

Bye Felicia.

Hopefully I can make this clear. I gave my reasons on why it is wrong to me and how GW2/fantasy lore is. You seem to have thought that I wish you punished for having a bikini "skin." I honestly do not. Each person in this game wants their characters to be unique in their own way. If that involves their character wearing a bikini then who am I to judge? I am tired of saying this and being punished for it...so I apologize if you felt that I was being offensive.

I don't seem to have thought anything. You literally said, having a bikini skin is fine but if a player uses it they should have their armor values nulled. If that's not a punishment, I don't know what is.

As for being offensive, I'm pretty thick skinned and I pull my punches significantly on these forums (I only ducked my head back in the game because I heard there's some overhauls to runes/sigils and I'm trying them out on my new PC). As a warning, I suggest you be careful accusing posters deflection or dodging the subject. If you do, state what they deflect or dodge.

[Laosduude.1690]

I want swimsuit for my thief for research

[Astyrah.4015]

one thing i find confusing in this game is that i don't know what sort of theme it's running, like it's not really medieval fantasy nor is it sci-fantasy nor is it modern. it's more like a mix of all themes and timelines so i guess a southsun/swimsuit outfit would fit in the game fine... but if they go that way i'd want them to release more casual stuff similar to the Dragon Emblem Outfit (gw2 t-shirt) or the never released school uniform outfit.

[Naxos.2503]

Swimsuit yes, but bikini armor is stretching it. Then again, if it's particularly well designed, and has some form of relevancy in the game world (For example southsun)...As an outfit though, I dont see this realistically working as an armor for players. As an outfit, pretty sure you'd get customers.

[Magicienne Endormie.5182]

Wow I did not expect this thread to get into deep talk! Since they've been some very interesting stuff said, I'm just going to add my few cents here, if you don't mind. I'll try to make it short, so I'm really going to dumb it down (it may gonna sound way too categoric like it's a know-it-all asura talking, but that's because I heavily simplified/summarized it, please keep in mind it's merrily my opinion, not some kind of absolute truth).

1. About the Conan and Red Sonja models, let's keep in mind that:

   • Conan: was made for the male audience. If you are not muscular like Conan: women don't sexually harass you. If you work out to be like Conan: men and women admire you, and women still don't sexually harasse you. Men gain from this model : it's a power fantasy for men and them being sexualized by women does not harm them.
   • Red Sonja: was not made for the female audience. If you're not sexy like Red Sonja: men sexually harass you, and society pushes you to look more beautiful. If you're sexy like Red Sonja: men sexually harass you, and society will tell you you asked for it by being sexy. Women never gain from this model : it's sexualization and it's harmful.(note: I'm talking about social groups, not individuals: women as a group suffer from sexual harassment from men as a group, while men as a group don't. It doesn't mean that as an individual, a man can't be sexually harassed by a woman. Of course it happens. Likewise, it doesn't mean either that all men harass women.)

2. When I said I would accept bikini armors only if male characters got the same treatment, we got those hilarious answers about groups of naked male norns jiggling around. I loved those and laughed at loud reading them, but let's ask ourselves why:

   • male in speedo armor => funny
   • female in bikini armor => sexy.Is it really equity then?(Btw:
   • male speedo armor isn't actually armor, it's cloth => practical. Think of how ridiculous a crotch plate would look like!
   • female bikini armor is real armor or scales => sexy. Why isn't it seen as ridiculous?)

3. What would happen if there were bikini and speedo armors?

   • we would get a few guys in speedo-armors, mainly for laughs.
   • we would get a whole lot of girls in bikini armors, mainly not for laughs.Now, remember the empowerment thing? Other comments before me talked about how, for a woman, being sexy can be female empowerment. It's true (and that's feminist, too: the goal is for women to simply be able to dress as they like). However:
   • it is female empowerment only if it is the woman herself who freely chooses to wear the sexy attire.
   • while there would certainly be female players choosing to dress their female character with bikini armor, the vast majority would be male players => whatever the player's intent is, whether it's perveted or not, the female character doesn't choose to be sexy. It's not empowerment.

4. Bikini armor is heavily connoted. We may think it's merrily a sexy thing, but to a lot of women it really is a symbol of sexualization, not empowerment, and it will probably remain so as long as women (as a group) will still get sexually harassed everywhere by men (as a group). Introducing it to the game would mean that female players that were having a nice time playing GW2 will suddenly see half-naked sexualized female characters everywhere and have thrown once more in their faces that to a large number of men, they are not human beings, but playthings (since they don't necessarily know you as a person, they can't know whether you are one of these men or not). So let's ask ourselves: does wanting to dress up female characters into a highly sexualized outfit really worth sacrifizing the safe place that is GW2 to all these female players?

5. A lot of female armors are already pretty skimpy in GW2. I'm sure we can work with that to make nice sexy-looking attires ;)

[Leo G.4501]

@Naxos.2503 said:Swimsuit yes, but bikini armor is stretching it. Then again, if it's particularly well designed, and has some form of relevancy in the game world (For example southsun)...As an outfit though, I dont see this realistically working as an armor for players. As an outfit, pretty sure you'd get customers.

I don't think it would be bad as an armor skin. Like I mentioned before, if it were made into a skin, I personally would look into methods of incorporating it into a look that previously was hindered by lack of options for exposed legs. For me, I tend to re-use skins that are more form fitting and those form fitting options are limited. Basically, it doesn't just have to be wearing a few cloth triangles and nothing more...players could certainly blend them with heavy, covered or bulky options to accentuate the openness of a particular piece.

I'm not mandating it should certainly be an armor skin over a swimwear outfit, just saying the possibilities can be very positive in the hands of a creative character.

[Irbis.4932]

More options are always nice, so why not. I just wonder why ppl tend to bring their politics into games when there's more than enough room for that on the internet or world outside instead of plaguing wity ir things that are supposed to be a fun escape from everyday life. :/

[Leo G.4501]

@Magicienne Endormie.5182 said:Now, remember the empowerment thing? Other comments before me talked about how, for a woman, being sexy can be female empowerment. It's true (and that's feminist, too: the goal is for women to simply be able to dress as they like).

I guess you're talking about me? Well, I feel pulling more socio-political context into this underminds everyone and is only catering to a minority (the majority being the feminist that feel empowerment with choice, the males/females who enjoy seeing attractive women, the people in the middle that simply don't care, along with the pervs and misogynists and creeps vs the minority of the prudes, the moral guardians, the SJdub feminist on man-hunts/witch-hunts). What is gained by catering to a minority in this context?

But I'll demonstrate why I brought up female empowerment into my previous statements:

@Magicienne Endormie.5182 said:Now, remember the empowerment thing? Other comments before me talked about how, for a woman, being sexy can be female empowerment. It's true (and that's feminist, too: the goal is for women to simply be able to dress as they like). However:However:

• it is female empowerment only if it is the woman herself who freely chooses to wear the sexy attire.
• while there would certainly be female players choosing to dress their female character with bikini armor, the vast majority would be male players => whatever the player's intent is, whether it's perveted or not, the female character doesn't choose to be sexy. It's not empowerment.

This is a contradiction. It is a blatant contradiction and is exactly why the argument doesn't hold water.

It's a contradiction because in one hand, you say this can be female empowerment in the hands of a female. In the other, when not in the hands of a female, the previous statement becomes null and responsibility (i.e. empowerment) is thus taken away from the female. That is DEpowerment. Putting choice and freedom in the hand of an individual isn't suddenly voided because another individual misuses it.

4. Bikini armor is heavily connoted. We may think it's merrily a sexy thing, but to a lot of women it really is a symbol of sexualization, not empowerment, and it will probably remain so as long as women (as a group) will still get sexually harassed everywhere by men (as a group).

That's actually an offensive statement, IMO. Men sexually harass women as a group? I know what you actually mean but you phrased it so poorly, it's basically saying men (as a group) are collectively at fault for the actions of a few and the freedoms of women (as a group) must be curtailed so as to facilitate a narrative of men (as a group) being predators.

This whole dynamic might be somewhat acceptable if it weren't for the constant victimization narrative strewn out at a constant fever pitch while ignoring all the facts that demolish such claims.

[TheBravery.9615]

SEARCH YOUR HEART YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE

[Belyar.6421]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Belyar.6421 said:i'm not against the idea if male characters can get similar armors too.

I'd rather not see male characters in bikini armor. No thanks.

Same with female bikini armor, I think its disgusting, but if it happens, at least male characters should get the same option.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

@"TheBravery.9615" said:

SEARCH YOUR HEART YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE

What are you trying to say? That only small brained women would pick a bikini or sensible armor and all women go gaga when they see fancy attire?

No, I don’t know this is true and it’s really stereotyping if that’s what you’re trying to say.

[Magicienne Endormie.5182]

@Irbis.4932 said:More options are always nice, so why not. I just wonder why ppl tend to bring their politics into games when there's more than enough room for that on the internet or world outside instead of plaguing wity ir things that are supposed to be a fun escape from everyday life. :/

I'd say that when people bring their politics into games usually it's because the problematic stuff that hurt them in the real world is right there in the game, which defeats the purpose of it being a fun escape from everyday life? For example, a female player could get harshly reminded of how men sexually harass them if they were seeing male players parading their half-naked female character around like some kind of plaything, therefore they would prefer not having that kind of highly sexualized gendered outfit in their game. Or, on contrario, people that bring their politics into games could simply be not aware of doing it, or not caring: for example, people who harass and/or constantly make allusions about the gender of the female players, which is why there are female players who do not say they are female. It means that to be able to have fun playing the game, those female players have to hide their identity, and if they don't and start talking about the problem... then we're back to the first instance. Politics are always there whether we see them or not, I'm afraid. :/

@Leo G.4501 said:This is a contradiction. It is a blatant contradiction and is exactly why the argument doesn't hold water.It's a contradiction because in one hand, you say this can be female empowerment in the hands of a female. In the other, when not in the hands of a female, the previous statement becomes null and responsibility (i.e. empowerment) is thus taken away from the female. That is DEpowerment. Putting choice and freedom in the hand of an individual isn't suddenly voided because another individual misuses it.

It's not a contradiction to me. If you can't see why it relies on who makes the choice, it just means we have different opinions about it. :)

@Leo G.4501 said:That's actually an offensive statement, IMO. Men sexually harass women as a group? I know what you actually mean but you phrased it so poorly, it's basically saying men (as a group) are collectively at fault for the actions of a few and the freedoms of women (as a group) must be curtailed so as to facilitate a narrative of men (as a group) being predators.

This whole dynamic might be somewhat acceptable if it weren't for the constant victimization narrative strewn out at a constant fever pitch while ignoring all the facts that demolish such claims.

I'm sorry if I offended someone here. I did say I would oversimplify because I was trying to make it really short. However, your wording is poor too, because it's really not the actions of a few men. That's what Me Too taught us. It's not A FEW men. Believing that is the reason why those NOT FEW men can still continue to do what they do without being bothered. I don't know what you mean by talking about "constant victimization" and facts that somehow demolish it but it makes you sound like someone who doesn't listen when women talk about very real societal problems (I'm not attacking you, just saying how it sounds like to me).

Anyway, you're right that I phrased it poorly so I'll try to make it clearer: when I said men as a group harass women as a group, I'm talking about numbers. It doesn't mean 'all men harass all women', it means that most sexual harassments are committed by men to mostly women and that most women have been sexually harassed at least once in their life, which means it's a social and gendered issue. That's what it means. No man should take it personnally unless they are one of those men or know one of them and did nothing about it.

Now I'm stopping here because I don't want to bother people with endless debates. I'm very happy though to see that despite having different opinions, you all remained mostly respectful of the other. That's why I love the GW2 community, apart from a few trolls, people here are great! :3

[Leo G.4501]

@Magicienne Endormie.5182 said:It's not a contradiction to me. If you can't see why it relies on who makes the choice, it just means we have different opinions about it. :)

Sure, to an individual who thinks no responsibility comes with empowerment, no contradiction exists here...

To those individuals who understand "With great power comes great responsibility", espousing empowerment while absolving responsibility when that empowerment has adverse effects in certain circumstances shows a lack of maturity and exhibits a contradiction when removing that responsibility.

@Magicienne Endormie.5182 said:I'm sorry if I offended someone here. I did say I would oversimplify because I was trying to make it really short. However, your wording is poor too, because it's really not the actions of a few men. That's what Me Too taught us. It's not A FEW men. Believing that is the reason why those NOT FEW men can still continue to do what they do without being bothered. I don't know what you mean by talking about "constant victimization" and facts that somehow demolish it but it makes you sound like someone who doesn't listen when women talk about very real societal problems (I'm not attacking you, just saying how it sounds like to me).

Mmm, we'll have to just disagree then. MeToo is a witch-hunt. Sure, it's show that there are unseely men in certain powerful and prominent positions, but that is factually and proveably a minority of a minority of men (that is, a percent of a percent).

Your language ("men can still continue to do what they do without being bothered") demonstrates to me you aren't interested in hearing facts and you don't mind if innocent individuals suffer consequences. That's fine, but like I said, don't play the victim (or defend the victim) while you make innocent victims in the process. It's hypocritical.

And you don't know what I'm talking about with "constant victimization"? You're doing it now. Conflating certain behavior to sexual harassment (dressing a female avatar up to be sexy? er mer gerd the wimmins!1), inflating percieved statistics based on mere anecdote (it's NOT a few men! it's so MANY men, we need to hold ALL men accountable!).

One issue is, women say they want to be heard when they talk about these things but NO ONE is silencing them. No one is telling them they can't...but at the same time, they refuse to listen to the other side of the coin. Listening AND understanding is a two-way street and you don't get understood without listening on your part.

@Magicienne Endormie.5182 said:Anyway, you're right that I phrased it poorly so I'll try to make it clearer: when I said men as a group harass women as a group, I'm talking about numbers. It doesn't mean 'all men harass all women', it means that most sexual harassments are committed by men to mostly women and that most women have been sexually harassed at least once in their life, which means it's a social and gendered issue. That's what it means. No man should take it personnally unless they are one of those men or know one of them and did nothing about it.

Oh please...

At least you admit you phrased it poorly (I didn't phrase anything poorly, though). But like I said, I predicted what you meant and it's still faulty when you consider what sexual harassment is and how the definition of such has changed. I'm certain women face unique difficulties in their day-to-day but don't pretend no one cares...while on the other side of the coin ignoring some egregious acts that women commit against men that are simply ignored or worse, normalized.

[Magicienne Endormie.5182]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Magicienne Endormie.5182 said:It's not a contradiction to me. If you can't see why it relies on who makes the choice, it just means we have different opinions about it. :)

Sure, to an individual who thinks no responsibility comes with empowerment, no contradiction exists here...

To those individuals who understand "With great power comes great responsibility", espousing empowerment while absolving responsibility when that empowerment has adverse effects in certain circumstances shows a lack of maturity and exhibits a contradiction when removing that responsibility.

@Magicienne Endormie.5182 said:I'm sorry if I offended someone here. I did say I would oversimplify because I was trying to make it really short. However, your wording is poor too, because it's really not the actions of a few men. That's what Me Too taught us. It's not A FEW men. Believing that is the reason why those NOT FEW men can still continue to do what they do without being bothered. I don't know what you mean by talking about "constant victimization" and facts that somehow demolish it but it makes you sound like someone who doesn't listen when women talk about very real societal problems (I'm not attacking you, just saying how it sounds like to me).

Mmm, we'll have to just disagree then. MeToo is a witch-hunt. Sure, it's show that there are unseely men in certain powerful and prominent positions, but that is factually and proveably a minority of a minority of men (that is, a percent of a percent).

Your language ("men can still continue to do what they do without being bothered") demonstrates to me you aren't interested in hearing facts and you don't mind if innocent individuals suffer consequences. That's fine, but like I said, don't play the victim (or defend the victim) while you make innocent victims in the process. It's hypocritical.

And you don't know what I'm talking about with "constant victimization"? You're doing it now. Conflating certain behavior to sexual harassment (dressing a female avatar up to be sexy? er mer gerd the wimmins!1), inflating percieved statistics based on mere anecdote (it's NOT a few men! it's so MANY men, we need to hold ALL men accountable!).

One issue is, women say they want to be heard when they talk about these things but NO ONE is silencing them. No one is telling them they can't...but at the same time, they refuse to listen to the other side of the coin. Listening AND understanding is a two-way street and you don't get understood without listening on your part.

@Magicienne Endormie.5182 said:Anyway, you're right that I phrased it poorly so I'll try to make it clearer: when I said men as a group harass women as a group, I'm talking about numbers. It doesn't mean 'all men harass all women', it means that most sexual harassments are committed by men to mostly women and that most women have been sexually harassed at least once in their life, which means it's a social and gendered issue. That's what it means. No man should take it personnally unless they are one of those men or know one of them and did nothing about it.

Oh please...

At least you admit you phrased it poorly (I didn't phrase anything poorly, though). But like I said, I predicted what you meant and it's still faulty when you consider what sexual harassment is and how the definition of such has changed. I'm certain women face unique difficulties in their day-to-day but don't pretend no one cares...while on the other side of the coin ignoring some egregious acts that women commit against men that are simply ignored or worse, normalized.

Wow, everything you said was wrong. I am no longer going to discuss with you because it's no longer a matter of opinion here (also it's not the subject of this thread). That you think that Me Too is a witch-hunt just shows how you don't understand anything about the subject. If you really wanted to educate yourself, there are many studies out there about rape culture, sexual harassment, rape, etc. that would provide you with facts and numbers. Have a good day.