Does sending dick-pics or beefcake shots actually work? Especially if you keep getting rejection?

What prompts this kind of mentality?

It was just the other day that that I read in the local news about a woman that was arrested for sending breast pictures to an ex, sending death threats to his new girlfriend, and stalking him from his home to work.

Stalking seems to be some form of obsessive behavior, and I suspect that sending pictures is an early stage of such behavior. It also describe a cure for it, ie similar cures we have when obsessive behavior makes someone a criminal.

> What prompts this kind of mentality?

Maladjusted chuds being maladjusted.

So you're saying idiots can't sexually harass people. Is that your excuse?

I think he's trying to distinguish between someone with poor ability to pick up on social cues (from someone with poor ability to communicate their wishes/feelings) and a sexual predator. That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character.

You've got to take responsibility for your actions and not make your problem other peoples' problem. If I'm nearsighted, it's irresponsible for me to drive without my glasses. Likewise, if you're bad at pickup up social cues, you probably should not be hitting on coworkers.

This is not the first time I've heard somebody try to fly the lame excuse that they're not guilty of doing something they actually did, because they were too stupid to know it was illegal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emergin...

> the lame excuse that they're not guilty

That's not what they said at all.

> > That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character.

Stop rounding people to stereotypes.

Yes it is what they said, actually:

"And I'm not saying X, but X." where "X" = "it's her fault".

Just because you deny what you're about to say in the same sentence just before you say it, doesn't mean you didn't say it.

So what is your motivation for defending someone who's trying to shift the blame to the victim of sexual harassment, and how does that speak to your character?

You're mis-framing my position in a highly offensive way.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence against it. That's right and proper.

If I believe you are happy with me taking money from your wallet, and so take some. Can you see that would be a different category morally to if I believed you would condemn such action and yet still took the money. Both situations might be theft, both might be judged morally wrong. But to me the moral character of the person in the two situations is different. And, that differences is worthy of note.

You're mis-framing the right of a stupid man to send unsolicited naked pictures of himself to a non-consenting woman without getting fired in a highly offensive way. You're wrong that stupidity is a justifiable excuse for that behavior.

"her silence [...] causing him to escalate to naked pictures"

Don't blame the victim's silence for "causing" an "escalation" to sending naked pictures. He decided to do it of his own free will, she did not "cause" him to do that by being silent.

The motivation of the above poster is accuracy.

based upon your post I can understand why you find it difficult identifying such a thing, but there it is.

You're so blinded by your beliefs you've lost all sense of fairness and balance and mistake moderates as the being of the opposing faction.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do this with.