OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Thursday, March 17


OMG: One of my guy friends kept making unnecessary body contacts when I told him to stop.

He always tries to put his hand around my shoulders or poke me on my thigh, which I told him to stop or slap his hand hard. He keeps doing this and is getting worse. I don't want to make a big scene of it and when I slapped his hand really hard today he was like "what, I'm trying to tell you the bus is coming."
I don't know what to do and I'm pretty grossed out. I kinda want to end the friendship because of this but we have many common friends and it might be awkward. We also have the same class every morning, so it's hard to avoid him. Please tell me what I can do, I don't have any actual evidence so I can't tell my other friends.
Ps, I'm a girl and I'm single so telling my boyfriend is not an option and I don't plan to get one soon. Thanks lots!


  1. I call bullshit on this story. It sounds like a feminist troll.

    1. this is a plausible story. i've seen shit like this happen many times during middle school and once in university. i was sitting in class -- i'm in a program with not that many females and most of men in my program are beta orbiters -- this one guy kept poking this girl in the side of the stomach. it was clear she was uncomfortable and embarassed.

    2. Can confirm. Feminist troll.

    3. Many of us, even feminists who date likeminded people, have dealt with sexist partners.

      Even more of us have dealt with sexist behaviors in partners who are not sexist people overall, since it’s virtually impossible not to internalize any of the misogyny our society promotes.

      The signs your date is sexist or holds certain sexist views can slide under the radar, however, since many of us are used to encountering sexism on a daily basis and don’t even notice it. And if you’re like me, you may miss them because you like to see the best in people and give them the benefit of the doubt.

      Unfortunately, while it’s generous to assume that someone didn’t mean that sexist thing they just said in a sexist way, sexism is still best nipped in the bud.

      Sometimes, if you call someone in and explain how their sexist behavior made you feel or how you’re worried it could make others feel, they’ll apologize and thank you for pointing it out. Other times, they’ll get defensive and continue doing it. Either way, you’ll get more information about how suitable a partner they are for you.

      Feminists are often gaslighted into believing that holding their partners accountable for promoting gender equality is unreasonable. It’s not, but the beauty of dating is that you don’t have to be reasonable.

      If people can choose only to date people of a certain religion or profession or body type, you’re sure as hell entitled to date only feminists. You should never feel like you have to apologize for being picky or stay with someone who doesn’t share your values.

      That said, here are some signs you and your partner may need to have a talk about sexism.

    4. 1. They’ve Made You Feel Belittled

      Of course, this can happen to anybody regardless of gender. But if you are a woman and your partner is a man, belittlement can be a sign of sexism because it reflects the belief that what you have to say is less important than what he does.

      Women are interrupted more often than men, and men often explain things to women that are within those women’s areas of expertise or lived experiences (known as “mansplaining”), so if your partner does this, it may be part of a larger, gendered pattern.

      Even if it’s not, you still have the right to be heard just as much as he does.

    5. 2. They’ve Pressured You About Your Body

      What we do with our bodies is our choice, so if your partner makes you feel bad about choices regarding your own body, it may reflect an unhealthy entitlement complex, regardless of your or their gender.

      If something about your body is affecting your partner (bad breath is an example), they have the right to politely say something, but what you do about it is still ultimately your decision.

      If they simply don’t find your fashion, beauty, or fitness choices aesthetically pleasing, that’s not really their business.

    6. 3. They Don’t Ask You For Consent

      Even if someone’s not an outright rapist, any sort of sexual misconduct is a red flag.

      A respectful person is not interested in sex, kissing, cuddling, or anything else with someone who does not freely consent, and they’re willing to ask for your consent so they don’t risk making the wrong assumptions.

      If you’re uncomfortable in the middle of a sexual encounter, they’ll stop immediately. If you aren’t in the mood, they won’t try to change your mind. Again, this is more often an issue for women, but it applies regardless of your gender.

      4. They Pride Themselves On Being A “Nice Guy”

      Don’t get me wrong — there’s nothing wrong with being a nice guy. But if someone wants everyone to know how nice he is, beware: He may be trying to use his “nice guy” status to get what he wants.

      “Nice Guy Syndrome” is an entitlement complex stemming from the belief that men are entitled to special treatment — particularly from women — in exchange for basic human decency. And they’re usually not nice at all.

      If someone tells you he’s better than other guys because he’s nice or that he deserves something from you in exchange for his kindness, back away slowly.

    7. 5. They Make Assumptions About You

      Relationships are about getting to know each other on a profound, intimate level, and making gender-based assumptions impedes this goal.

      If your partner assumes you love kids because you’re a woman or like to watch sports because you’re a man, they’re not really listening to you. Even if these assumptions seem positive, like the belief that someone is very empathetic because she’s a woman, they still stand in the way of viewing that person as an individual.

      If your partner assumes something about you, let them know how you really are and that you’d prefer they ask you what you like or what you’re good at before jumping to conclusions.

      6. They Insist On Following Gendered Dating Scripts

      If a guy feels the need to always pay for a female partner’s dinner or open doors for her — such that he refuses to let her do either, ever — he may not be secure in his masculinity. And if a woman pressures a male partner into exhibiting these gestures, she’s not respecting his autonomy.

      There’s nothing wrong with practicing chivalry if that’s what both partners want, but it becomes a problem when it isn’t a mutual decision or impedes equality in the relationship.

    8. 7. They Make Jokes At One Gender’s Expense

      It’s not particularly funny to hear about how difficult women are when they’re menstruating if that stereotype prevents people from taking you seriously. And the notion that men can’t take phone messages isn’t exactly hilarious when it makes people view you as a less competent person (and leads them to conclude that women have to do all the housework).

      There are plenty of things couples can laugh about that don’t have anything to do with each other’s supposed gender-based incompetencies.

      8. They Give You A Hard Time For Bringing Any Of This Up

      If you are feeling belittled, pressured, disregarded, or pigeonholed in your relationship and your partner doesn’t want to fix that, that’s another sign they don’t respect you.

      And if they tell you that you’re being paranoid, oversensitive, crazy, or the PC police, that is an example of gaslighting, an emotional abuse tactic used especially toward women to make them doubt what they know to be true.

    9. 1c diverting article pasted (after 23c posted)

    10. Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
      Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

      In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

      Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

      In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation. Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of an ability for women to love Men as Men would like them to.

      For the plugged-in beta, this aspect of ‘awakening’ is very difficult to confront. Even in the face of constant, often traumatic, controversions to what a man hopes will be his reward for living up to qualifying for a woman’s love and intimacy, he’ll still hold onto that Disneyesque ideal.

      It’s very important to understand that this love archetype is an artifact from our earliest feminized conditioning. It’s much healthier to accept that it isn’t possible and live within that framework. If she’s there, she’s there, if not, oh well. She’s not incapable of love in the way she defines it, she’s incapable of love as you would have it. She doesn’t lack the capacity for connection and emotional investment, she lacks the capacity for the connection you think would ideally suit you.

      The resulting love that defines a long-term couple’s relationship is the result of coming to an understanding of this impossibility and re-imagining what it should be for Men. Men have been, and should be, the more dominant gender, not because of some imagined divine right or physical prowess, but because on some rudimentary psychological level we ought to realized that a woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman’s hypergamy. By order of degrees, hypergamy will define who a woman loves and who she will not, depending upon her own opportunities and capacity to attract it.

    11. diverting articles pasted after 23c post to UW president

    12. I guess I'm just sort of a mess right now. Every guy I've been with since my ex and I split hasn't known "how" to handle my lady bits, because I have a gigantic fucking hideous redundant labia. I literally asked my mom when I was 11 if I used to be a boy and she had my testicles removed and that was why I had such a big "sac" between my legs.
      Nope, turns out I just have a fucking enormous labia that hides my clit and guys consequently can't find it, and as such, like to pretend it doesn't exist. They don't like to finger me, eat me out, look at my vag, nothing.
      I hate it and I would literally cut the stupid fucking things off with scissors if I didn't know it'd hurt so damn much.
      They are actually, truly, and honestly long enough to get caught in my underwear. I know I'm not just 'being self conscious' about them - they're large enough to be uncomfortable on a consistent basis.
      I dunno where I'm going with this. I just hate them and I hate that everything about me is fucking ugly. Oh hey, not only are you fat and hairy, but your feet are fucked and every time a guy sees your pussy he's gonna be like "uhhh"
      Thanks for reading about my gross vag, I guess.

  2. I think you have to put not seeing that friend again on the table. It seems like he either doesn't care about what you say and doesn't take it seriously and/or is an asshole. You should stop, look him straight in the eyes, and tell him that if he doesn't stop touching you you're not hanging out with him again. I know you have shared friends, but you have to mean it. You have to be willing to actively avoid him if he doesn't comply. You can't let him keep doing this, because right now he thinks you're not serious or that he can get away with it.

    If your friends blame you or don't understand or think you are taking "extreme" action just because the guy is joking around or touching you every once in a while, then honestly they don't sound like great friends. I know it's not easy to risk losing a main group of friends in a shitty city like this one, but it has to be on the table.

    If you try to avoid him and you're not hanging out and he still tries to approach you and touch you, then this is serious harassment and you need to speak to an authority on campus.

  3. He might be trying to learn some contour plots

    1. There are some truths which are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen or at least not recognized by ordinary people. They sometimes pass by such truisms as though blind and are most astonished when someone suddenly discovers what everyone really ought to know. Columbus's eggs lie around by the hundreds of thousands, but Columbuses are met with less frequently.
      Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature's rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth.
      Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature's restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc.
      Only unusual circumstances can change this, primarily the compulsion of captivity or any other cause that makes it impossible to mate within the same species. But then Nature begins to resist this with all possible means, and her most visible protest consists either in refusing further capacity for propagation to bastards or in limiting the fertility of later offspring; in most cases, however, she takes away the power of resistance to disease or hostile attacks.
      This is only too natural.

    2. diverting article pasted after 23c post to UW president

    3. Agree & amplify is usually the preferred method because they're often fun (read: stimulating) and non-reactionary. In my experience you'll get better mileage out A&A as well as it's less likely to blow up in your face/have a negative outcome than the other methods since context does still matter and the others are easier to misapply.

      Changing the subject is pretty self-explainatory, as is ignoring her shit test.

      Pressure flip is the idea is you're not phased by the question and answer so quickly that now the spotlight is on her, all because you're flipping the script with haste. For example:

      Shit test: What kind of car do you drive?
      Pressure flip: "Nameofcarhowaboutyou?"

      The "Nuclear Option" is when you destroy their self-worth with the notion you do not find them sexually appealing in any way whatsoever. For attractive women this is in all likelihood the worst hit you can inflict on a woman's ego. Anyone that's broken up with a hottie because her personality is shit knows exactly what I'm talking about. In other words you're nuking their ego/self-esteem from orbit. I strongly recommend reserving this option only for women who are on the offensive and deliberately trying to be a bitch for whatever reason and/or tear you down in front of others.

      Commanding respect is especially important for the kind of testing where they're just being an annoyance and generally disrespectful. IMO disrespect should not be tolerated and needs to be nipped in the bud, and is an important way to maintain frame control. You simply need to be firm and treat her like a father would to their child who's being disrespectful. You don't get angry, you just call her on the behavior and let her know clearly that you won't stand for it. In a way this is almost a type of pressure flip. You're taking her negative energy and sliding past it and putting the onus on her to react by changing her approach to the topic. For example:

      Her: Nag nag nag.
      You: That is disrespectful and I will not tolerate it.

  4. This happened to me in first year. Ended up telling the guy that I didn't want to hang out anymore. I ended up losing a few friends at the time (but we reconnected a few years later). It sucks at the time, but if you put yourself out there (like introduce yourself to people sitting next to you in class or joining a club or sitting with a different group of people for lunch in residence), it's not hard to find another group of friends. This situation sucks though, but it's better that you learn to stick up for yourself when someone does something that makes you feel uncomfortable.

  5. Repeat after me:
    He is not your friend.
    He does not respect you.
    What he is doing is assault.
    Touching you without your consent is assault.

    You need to cut off any contact with him, face-to-face, text, phone, whatever. No more contact with him. You clearly expressed that this behaviour is unwanted and he continues to do it. The fact that it's getting worse is a big concern. He could commit a violent assault or rape against you. I'm not being dramatic, this is a real threat. Send him one last text and tell him you do not want to see him anymore and if he tries to contact you again you will report him. You don't owe him any explanations.

    1. > He could commit a violent assault or rape against you. I'm not being dramatic, this is a real threat.

      Wow. This way of scaring people and making them paranoid is despicable. OP should have an honest conversation with the guy and make clear she is unavailable. Touching shoulders and thighs is not assault, probably unwanted sexual advances, but not assault. The guy is probably not the monster you're making him out to be, probably just a poor beta male who is bad at reading signs of interest. Your hatred of men and paranoia is very problematic and you are the one who should seek help.

    2. 5a, you are clearly not a woman and have no experience in the territory of dealing with unwanted advances. Please stop giving advice where you have no experience. It's great that violent assault and rape are not things that you have to worry about, but for those of us that do, dismissing reasonable precautions and trivializing the issue is not only insulting but irresponsible.
      OP, I recommend you take the proper precautions and cut out this person from your life since they clearly don't respect you and are exhibiting many red flags that should not be ignored.

    3. 33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something
      that we will call the "power process." This is closely related to the
      need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same
      thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut
      of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs
      to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed
      in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more
      difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it
      autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).

      34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he
      wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will
      develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of
      fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized.
      Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that
      leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of
      fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power.
      But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert
      themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even
      though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must
      have goals toward which to exercise one's power.

      35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical
      necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are
      made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains
      these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.

      36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are
      physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals
      is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals
      throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.

      37. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human
      being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a
      reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.

    4. 5c What is this, some kind of MRA bullshit? Your last point makes it sound like women owe men that "success" to avoid him becoming a broken individual. Give me a fucking break. If your mental health is so dependent on someone fucking you then hire a god damn prostitute. Women don't owe you anything you fucking toddler.

    5. 5c diverting article pasted (after 23c posted)


      The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

      There are a few corollaries I would add:

      Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

      Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

      A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

      Let us start by saying much of the discussion on the Stickman site seems to start from the belief that Thai women are somehow different from all other women, both in the good and the bad. And that their actions derive from the cultural milieu in which they were reared; and therefore no western man can really understand their thinking without intensive cross cultural study. I posit that this is BS. No man can ever understand what is going on inside the head of any woman, of any culture, including their own, no matter how much they study. We should not kid ourselves. The best we can hope to do is observe their behaviors and roll with the punches. This is where Briffault’s Law is vital. All women associate with any man only so long as they derive a benefit from the association. This can not be stated too many times.

      A bit of recent data that supports this proposition comes from a recent study done in the UK. The findings were that for a period from the early 1990’s to the early 2000’s, 90% of UK women practiced hypergamy. Hypergamy is a 15 cent (about 7 pence in GBPs) word for marrying up. The hypothesis in the study was; do women exhibit hypergamy, or not. You start with assuming not, and then disprove that. If they do not, then roughly 50% would marry up and 50% would marry down. During the period of the study 90% of UK women married men that made more money than they did, or had greater wealth. The 90% marrying up rate provides ample evidence that the women exhibit hypergamy behavior. These were not poor daughters of Isaan rice farmers. This was not a developing country. This behavior could be observed anywhere in the world and at any time in history.

    7. Before discovering Briffault’s Law, I came to a similar independent, although not so well or concisely stated, conclusion. A few years ago, while arguing with my six sisters about my intentions to marry a Filipina half my age (marriage number 4 so I am a slow learner), they argued that she was just marrying me to get a better life. After a few seconds of reflection I retorted that this was true for every woman in the world marrying any man. This left them with no response. After all, who among us ever marries to have a worse life? We all hope that it will be an improvement. With women it is doubly so, since they have no intention of actually working to improve their lives.

      So, let’s get to Korski’s question, “Who is a Whore”, and my initial response, “They all are”. By Briffault’s Law if a woman is associating with you (assuming you are a man) then she is doing it because she sees some benefit, either current, or in the future, from that association. How is this different from the bargirl on Soi Cowboy? I think only in the duration of the intended association, the amount of benefit expected, and in the woman’s acceptance of delay in getting that benefit. Guys, let’s get real about this. It is past time to take off the rose colored glasses.

      How does this help? If you know going in that she is there to derive a benefit, then make sure you are willing and able to provide that benefit, that you are willing and able to continue to provide that benefit, and that the cost to you of providing that benefit is worth the benefit you derive from the association. Be fully aware that when the benefit to her stops, the relationship will stop. Have no illusions. This is true in the UK, France, America, Thailand, and everywhere else. So, if you spend every dime in your retirement fund to build her and/or her mother a house (in her name of course), do not expect that the association will continue. You must say no early and often so you preserve your ability to provide a continuing benefit. If you drain all your resources, then you get what you should expect (see corollary 1).

      Keep control of your money, only you will be responsible with it, because you had to earn it. After my first divorce I commiserated with a female secretary that was at least two decades older than me, and who was herself divorced. When I told her that I had let my wife run the family finances (common in 80% of married couples in the USA), and that she had run us deep into debt, she told me, “Any man that turns over his paycheck to a woman is a fool.” I would add that giving any woman every penny you have in the world is just asking her to kick you to the curb and walk away from you.

    8. Deriving mutual benefits from a relationship is not a bad thing. Where Brokenman and the rest of us men lose the plot is when we expect past benefit provided to the woman to continue generating current or future association (see corollary 1). Loyalty, honor, gratitude, and duty are male values that we men project on women, but which very few, to no, women actually possess. We aren’t born with these values; they are drummed into us from the cradle on by society/culture, our families, and most definitely by the women in our lives (sorry, but that includes you too, Mom). Women get different indoctrination, so they have different values; mostly, for a woman, whatever is good for her and her (biological) children is what is best, full stop. So, do not expect that the woman in your life will be grateful, and sacrifice for you, when you can no longer provide for her and hers. And make no mistake, you have never been, and never will be, part of what is hers. What are hers will be first herself, then her (biological) children, then her parents, then her siblings, and then the rest of her blood relatives. The biological imperative has always been to extend her blood line. It stops there, and it always will. This is true everywhere in the world. Get over it.

      Men love women, but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love. “Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.” How many women are willing to die for their husbands, friends, country, or comrades in arms? Damn few, if any. Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances). How many men continue on in their marriages, supporting their family and their wife, while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many. How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most. Women do not behave like this. Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die. Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband, she will not have insurance. She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead. She could care less what happens to the husband, and doesn’t want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo, after she dies. The life insurance gender statistics are well known, and widely available. None of this should be a shocking revelation. When my second wife died, her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teacher’s union covered her funeral expenses. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350,000 my life insurance would have paid.

    9. 5fgh diverting article pasted after 23c post to UW president

  6. You can also bring this concern up with your prof and he can help you pursue options for avoiding him in class. If you don't feel you can talk to your prof, contact Counselling services here and they can help guide you in what to do:

    1. I called Counselling Services about this. Their receptionist or whoever said she's never heard of this before and asked if I'm sure. She said there's no one like that there and asked me how I heard about it. So maybe he moved on or was quietly fired.

    2. Just checked. The creep from 6a's sexual assault links is still here on campus. From the links, his victim told him to stop too and he didn't. Just like OP. How is this in our best interest? Why am I paying his salary? Can I opt-out?

    3. I'm reading the Counselling Services sexual assault back story on this and honestly there's tons about it. So far I see lots of enabling posts. But many concerned ones too. There are links to other omg's and articles.

    4. Found Omg 20813 post 10 and 10a has a list of OMG's about this, and what each is about.

    5. This witch hunt is ridiculous to be fair. That person was convicted in a court of justice and has paid his debt to society. If you think that he hasn't paid enough that's your opinion, but you can't put him on trial again on OMGUW. That's not how this works.

    6. 6.f I don't know what you're talking about. What witch hunt?

    7. ^ This thread has nothing to do with the person at Counseling Services. Someone keeps bringing up that case on every possible thread, and posts outraged comments such as "The creep from 6a's sexual assault links is still here on campus. From the links, his victim told him to stop too and he didn't. Just like OP. How is this in our best interest? Why am I paying his salary? Can I opt-out?". This is the witch hunt I am talking about.

    8. 6g, someone pressed 6f's button. This looks like the start of a long fight. Try to keep up.

    9. 6g, it's like UW's version of Hitler and Nazis. Whenever anyone on OMG brings up anything related to sexual assault, harassment, or women's safety. The ongoing Counselling Services situation will get mentioned eventually.

    10. ^ The Counseling Services situation is not ongoing! These events happened several years ago and the person responsible was tried and convicted. I think this kind of posts only discourages people to attend Counselling Services, when they may need it. This is very irresponsible, especially in this thread.

    11. 6j, I believe you mean Godwin's law.

    12. 6j and whenever anyone refers to Counselling Services, the harassment (and reprisals) going on there are brought up. The topics are forever linked by the situation.

    13. 6j It's the billion-sun weight-sexual harassment black hole at the center of the UW galaxy, around which students, staff, and many UW administrative departments get tugged and perturbed by.

    14. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very
      painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the
      results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had
      best break down sooner rather than later.

      We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system.
      This revolution may or may not make use of violence: it may be sudden
      or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We
      can't predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the
      measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in
      order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of
      society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be
      to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis
      of the present society.

      In this article we give attention to only some of the negative
      developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological
      system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore
      altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments
      as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our
      discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention
      or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are
      well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written
      very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild
      nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

    15. 6o diverting article pasted (after 23c posted)

    16. A planet forms from floating debris in space, on on it, things exist. Some become autonomous. Some not.

      On this planet exist a stone and a man.

      What gives a stone value? It has no inherent value. Indeed, the term value is, in a universe sans consciousness, meaningless.

      However a man may find use in the stone with which to build a shelter. This man has found value in this stone. The stone, itself being non-sentient, has no way to determine value, and therefore does not hold within itself a concept of self-value.

      The man, however, through the experience of being sees value in himself, as without his being, he can no longer experience. This would be the most intrinsic value to any living being. The value of self.

      Fast forward hundreds of years. Two men find a stone.

      The first man sees the stone and the possibility to utilize it to build himself a home. To him, the rock has great value.

      The second man already has a home, and sees no possible utility for the stone.

      Has the second man somehow changed the value of the stone for the first? Has either made any indication of this stone's objective inherent value? Alas, there is no framework in which all members of a system agree entirely on the value of a stone, only that the stone itself has the ability to hold value for at least some of the members. Again, the stone holds no value to itself, as the stone is non-sentient.

      The man who finds a stone needs help building his house. For this purpose, he needs an able bodied man who is strong enough to lift the stone. This man will have value in this purpose. To the builder, a young, weak man who is not able-bodied will have no value for this project. Likely, in the case of survival, the cripple will provide little value in almost any endeavor.

      Does this mean the crippled man has no value to himself? If he discontinues existing, he will no longer be able to experience. The experience itself holds intrinsic value, as without experience, there is no value.

      What one person sees in another will never, and can never be an objective declaration of value. There is no system or framework in which all members can or need to agree on value of any person or object. A starving man values a single grape, when the glutton may not value ones that do not immediately please his eyes.

    17. A few questions to ask yourself.

      What makes you think that you're so special you should hold an intrinsic value to strangers, if you have not provided some level of value to them?

      If you're worried about not being valued, ask yourself what is it you bring to the table worthy of value?

      Men are taught from a very early age that in order to be valued in society, they need to bring value to the table. Men focus and hone crafts, trade skills, personality for sales, strength for labor, and a myriad of other value-adding traits.

      Do you suppose you should deserve an equal amount of value in the eyes of all if you do not provide something valuable? Or are you making the very simple mistake of believing that having a vagina has somehow equated you to these things?

      The problem is that you're used to society saying that because of who you are, you somehow have an intrinsic value. I have just shown you that this is false, there is no intrinsic value beyond that which you have for yourself. Your vagina has given you inflated value to most, since most men are biologically programmed to trip over themselves trying to gain access to one.

      We aren't denying that women can bring value to the table. We're just denying that merely having a vagina gets you that value. If you want to be valued by us, you'll have to do it the hard way- the same way we do.

      You don't have to though, there are plenty of sex-deprived betas drooling at a chance to worship your vagina. To them you hold value. To us, you're just another person until you've shown us value.

    18. diverting article pasted after 1c

  7. It sucks that you can't go to Counselling Services to stop this sexual harassment and sexual assault because they're even worse.


      6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled
      society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of
      our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can
      serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern
      society in general.

      7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century
      leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today
      the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be
      called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in
      mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types,
      feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and
      the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these
      movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing
      leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological
      type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by
      "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of
      leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

      8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less
      clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for
      this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate
      way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main
      driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling
      the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is
      meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of
      the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of
      the 19th and early 20th century.

      9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we
      call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of
      inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while
      oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of
      modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

    2. 10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings
      in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low
      self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies,
      defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend
      to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these
      feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

      11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said
      about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that
      he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is
      pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong
      to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are
      hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms
      "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an
      Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory
      connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents
      of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been
      attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal
      rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and
      insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist
      anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about
      primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.
      They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem
      almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive
      culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that
      primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the
      hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

    3. 7a/b diverting articles pasted (after 23c posted)

    4. ^ No sweetie, you hijacked this thread first :) You are the one constantly diverting the debate.

  8. Touching your shoulder should be considered assault?! What the fuck is going on with this world seriously? It's just a harmless marker of affection. Some people are more touchy than others, it doesn't mean he's trying to rape you. Believe me, you'll enjoy life much more once you take that broom out of your ass.

    1. Repeatedly touching her shoulders and thigh after repeatedly being told to stop is sexual harassment and is sexual assault. He does not have the right to touch her without her consent.

    2. @8a Oh I didn't know there was something sexual about a shoulder lol
      I tell you, our society is going to hell. Grow the fuck up. If you don't like how a person is acting with you, don't hang out with them. Don't cry wolf and label everything "sexual assault" because it banalizes real sexual assaults and real victims.

    3. No. 8b, it's wrong to say a worse crime is the minimum threshold to stop, and that she has to quietly submit to, or not report, anything less than that.

      Banalizes? Is that a danger? Really. The real danger is trivializing these harassments and nurturing a climate where these are tolerated.

      And that's the second time you've ignored that he touched her thigh too. Why?

    4. I didn't say she should "quietly submit". Wtf, this isn't Saudi Arabia. She should make herself clear to the guy that his advances are unwanted, and if he isn't cooperative, just stop hanging out with him, as I mentioned before. Women should solve their own problems sometimes, this is true equality between the genders.

      > The real danger is trivializing these harassments and nurturing a climate where these are tolerated.

      Tbh I prefer a climate where touching is tolerated rather than this shitty climate where people are always paranoid, cold and resentful. You know, this climate you are striving to create.

      > And that's the second time you've ignored that he touched her thigh too. Why?

      Strictly speaking thighs aren't sexual either, I don't know what you're trying to say.

    5. OR that person could just stop being disrespectful and THEY can grow the fuck up and realize that touching people anywhere after being repeatedly told not to is harassment, not to mention insanely disrespectful.
      Ghosting a person who does not understand the meaning of no is not easy and not always an option. OP said that they have class together every morning. If this guy doesn't stop touching her when she's asked multiple times, then why would he stop talking to her because she doesn't want to be friends? I know it's nice to live in a little bubble and pretend that men are all beautiful little fairies that would never hurt a fly, but in reality there are a lot of creepy men out there who are unaware of how inappropriate their actions are until confronted by someone of authority. It's a little mind-boggling that someone could find a problem with reporting sexual harassment, but I can only assume that it comes from a place of insecurity or identifying with the perpetrator.

    6. @8e You seem to be a very confused person. Take a deep breath and try to distinguish between "being disrespectful", "harassement" and "sexual assault". I assure you, these terms are not equivalent and alternating between them in your sentences doesn't make them more so. Similarly, "ghosting" a person is not the same as "not hanging out with them anymore". Ghosting implies disappearing without explanation. On the contrary, I suggested that OP sits down with the guy and discusses openly and honestly the problems she has with his behaviour.
      You know, sometimes words have a meaning, we don't only use them because they sound pretty.

      > It's a little mind-boggling that someone could find a problem with reporting sexual harassment, but I can only assume that it comes from a place of insecurity or identifying with the perpetrator.

      *When you realize you don't really have a point and you fall back on an ad-hominem*

    7. The only one confused here is you. I never described it as assault, first of all. I used 2/3 of those words because both of them describe this situation. To take a page from your own book, let me spell it out for you:
      Sometimes, a situation can be described by multiple words. Using those words to describe the same event is not the same as calling them equivalent. For example, a telemarketer calling your house is both rude and solicitation. They do not mean the same thing. Now you know.
      Repeatedly saying "this is not harassment" doesn't make you any more correct either. You have yet to provide any valid points to support that statement. Bothering someone continually and disregarding their requests to stop is the definition of harassment.
      As for sitting down and talking with him. Yes, that is clearly a good idea, and also something that OP has mentioned attempting. She has told him to stop and it did not work. Why would her telling him to leave her alone work any better? I agree with you that it's a good idea to attempt to communicate the issue further, but to come out of the gate berating her for not having done that when she mentioned making multiple attempts to do so is just uncalled for, and will only result in OP disregarding your advice rather than taking it.

      "Ad-hominem" lol. So you're just gonna ignore your initial post telling OP she's got a broom in her ass? My point still stands without the question of your character, you're just willfully ignoring it because the last bit hit too close to home.

    8. 8f, "I suggested that OP sits down with the guy and discusses openly and honestly the problems she has with his behaviour."

      OP already talked with him and told him to stop his behaviour. That was open and honest enough. She's done enough. She doesn't need to engage with him any more. From what OP says, if she did offer to sit with him to talk about it, he'd interpret that as her being interested in him and giving him attention.

      She's not trying to mend a relationship. She's trying to stop being physically poked and prodded by an adult on a university campus.

      She said he's getting worse.

      Why don't you give some ideas on what the guy should do differently? Anything? Or nothing. Oh, but you're fine with what he's doing, aren't you: "I prefer a climate where touching is tolerated."

      But you left out the word "unwanted". So do you prefer a climate where unwanted touching is tolerated?

    9. > I never described it as assault, first of all.


      from 8a:
      > Repeatedly touching her shoulders and thigh after repeatedly being told to stop is sexual harassment and is sexual assault.

      So yes, you did. More specifically, you used the terms "sexual assault" and "sexual harassement". To which I retorted that shoulders and thighs are not sexual areas. So yes, I did provide valid points to support my statement. I can't be responsible for your failure at reading comprehension. Now you're backtracking and lying, but it doesn't work very well.

      > As for sitting down and talking with him. Yes, that is clearly a good idea, and also something that OP has mentioned attempting. She has told him to stop and it did not work.

      No, she didn't sit down with him and discuss openly and honestly his behaviour. To quote OP:

      > I told him to stop or slap his hand hard.

      This is not a serious discussion. Slapping his hand could be interpreted as playful. What I suggested is a reasonable solution and even you agreed with me!

      On the other hand, you suggested that OP is a victim of sexual assault and that she should go to the police, make a big deal out of something really small, and ruin that poor guy's life. Yes, this is the society we live in: I touch your shoulder and I'm a sex offender for life.

      > there are a lot of creepy men out there who are unaware of how inappropriate their actions are until confronted by someone of authority. It's a little mind-boggling that someone could find a problem with reporting sexual harassment

      > "Ad-hominem" lol. So you're just gonna ignore your initial post telling OP she's got a broom in her ass?

      I wasn't addressing OP. I was addressing the people who commented above and said this was "sexual assault" i.e. you.

      > My point still stands without the question of your character

      What point? That this is sexual assault and she should go to the police? Or that this is disrespectful and she should attempt to communicate with the guy? Your last message makes it seem that you agree with me. You just go on proving how confused you are. Stop projecting your insecurities on OP's story and admit that you were wrong.

    10. 8i, there are more than 2 (3, or more ..4? 5? so far?) people talking under thread 8. 8g is likely not the same person as 8a.

      I realize it's confusing, but you're not privately texting with 8g here.

    11. Well now you're just making a fool out of yourself, 8i. I'm not 8a. Believe it or not, there are 3+ of us here that think you're full of shit. My posts are 8e and 8g, and no, none of them described it as sexual assault because I believe that to be an overstatement.
      As for thighs not being "sexual" enough for you, that doesn't really matter. Harassment is harassment, whether sexual or not.

      > I told him to stop or slap his hand hard.
      Followed by " I slapped his hand really hard today", implying he has been warned on more than one occasion than today. Seeing as she mentioned three times in this post that she's told him to stop, it's very unlikely that she's not making herself clear.

      >you agreed with me!
      I agreed that it's important to communicate and make it known that she is uncomfortable. I disagree that she has not done this already. I also think the way you jumped to blaming OP for not saying no well enough is misplaced and frankly strange.

      >On the other hand, you suggested that OP is a victim of sexual assault and that she should go to the police

      Did I really? Seems like you're the one lying at this point. I never suggested she go to the police. I would personally suggest she go to the teacher or some sort of authority figure at the school and get them to issue a formal warning.

      >make a big deal out of something really small, and ruin that poor guy's life.

      How tragic for him to receive a warning for continually crossing physical boundaries and making his classmate uncomfortable. What a terrible situation for HIM.

      >Yes, this is the society we live in: I touch your shoulder and I'm a sex offender for life.

      Now you're just being hyperbolic and purposefully disregarding the main point. You don't get sexual harassment charges just for touching someone's shoulder one time. The problem is that it is a REPEATED offence that he has been specifically asked not to do on multiple occasions. If you're going to harass someone, you have to deal with the consequences. I'm not going to sit here boo hooing for someone who can't respect others. And "ruin his life"... suuuuuure.

      >What point? That this is sexual assault and she should go to the police? Or that this is disrespectful and she should attempt to communicate with the guy? Your last message makes it seem that you agree with me. You just go on proving how confused you are.

      That it is both disrespectful and sexual harassment. That she should perhaps make one last attempt at clear communication (since I am not OP and we have not been given enough info to know if this happened) before consulting a person of higher authority to stop the behaviour. I agreed with you on one point, which is not mutually exclusive to disagreeing with you on all others.

      >Stop projecting your insecurities on OP's story and admit that you were wrong.
      HA. This is fucking rich when your own insecurities are bubbling up so uncontrollably.

    12. > Now you're just being hyperbolic and purposefully disregarding the main point. You don't get sexual harassment charges just for touching someone's shoulder one time. The problem is that it is a REPEATED offence that he has been specifically asked not to do on multiple occasions. If you're going to harass someone, you have to deal with the consequences. I'm not going to sit here boo hooing for someone who can't respect others. And "ruin his life"... suuuuuure.

      Sorry, 8g, but 8i has a point here. Being touched (even multiple times) is nothing compared to the hellhole sexual assault charges can mean for a guy. People in authority are very very biased towards women, and this can escalate quickly. I know a guy who is now a registered sex offender because he groped a girl while drunk at a party. The girl complained to her parents, and the parents went straight to the police.

      I don't know whether this is sexual harassement or not, OP doesn't provide enough details to make that claim. We should be careful not to jump to conclusions. Men are not always rapists and women are not always the victims... real life is a bit more complex.

    13. 8g/8k, "What a terrible situation for HIM." Really good point. Some people save up their sympathy for the guy who made the problem, and leave all the fixing responsibility to the girl.

    14. @8m I think we can all agree that being touched on the shoulder and thigh is nowhere near as bad as being a registered sex offender. Do you agree?

    15. 8n, refer back to 8c who said "No. 8b, it's wrong to say a worse crime is the minimum threshold to stop, and that she has to quietly submit to, or not report, anything less than that." So what if committing crimes severe enough to get registered as a sex offender is worse? Is that your threshold for what gets you concerned?

    16. @8o well yes, my threshold is higher than being touched on the shoulder and thigh! I wonder where YOUR threshold is because as it stands now you seem like the kind of person who would throw half the male population in prison (just for being human and having sexual urges).

    17. Having sexual urges ≠ touching someone nonconsentually multiple times after being told to stop. One of those things is a thought and the other is an action. An action which disregards the right of another human being to their own body. If half the male population really can't control their urge to put their hands on people who have expressed discomfort with it, then humanity has some bigger problems than I thought.
      I don't think he should be registered as a sex offender, but he should most definitely be punished and made to know that that kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Because it is unacceptable. I hope we can agree on that?

    18. ^ Yes agreed. But I'm not 8p.

    19. @8l: Yeah, sorry, but your buddy sexually harassed someone and now he's a registered sex offender. That seems about right.

      I honestly don't get how some of you are defending the dude in this situation. He's been told to stop and doesn't even respond to being physically hit on the hand. Realize that slapping him is (I assume; this is definitely a generalization) the extent to which the woman can rely on her physical strength in this situation. If I was her I would be pretty scared. Btw, I'm a dude and I would consider it sexual harassment if this guy was repeatedly touching my thigh. That's definitely a "close friends, and maybe not then" area for touching.

  9. I swear this crap at Counselling Services is the worst thing for University of Waterloo's Public Relations and UW's reputation and has been for the last 3 years.

    It's like UW's infected tooth that the patient refuses to get a root canal for.

    UW! Someone high up, fix it and let us trust you again. OP needs advice from a place that's safe for her to go.

    1. 9, the climate that 8c's strong post referenced is exactly the situation that's tolerated and festers for what - going on 7 years not 3 - at Counselling Services.

      So OP pays her fees to CS for advice from staff there who do the same and worse as OP's friend, to one of their own.

    2. > 9, the climate that 8c's strong post referenced

      XD hahahaha omg my sides are orbiting
      You are using a sock puppet in an attempt to increase the credibility of your posts, and you aren't even making an effort to be subtle about it. 8c's "strong" post eh? :D

    3. Using public relations for an internal poison climate is like trying to cover up not bathing with a bottle of cologne.

    4. 9b - There's no such thing as a sock puppet when we're all anonymous.

    5. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster
      for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of
      those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have
      destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected
      human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological
      suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have
      inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued
      development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly
      subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage
      on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social
      disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased
      physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.

    6. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break
      down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of
      physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a
      long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of
      permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to
      engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore,
      if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is
      no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from
      depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

    7. 9e/f diverting articles pasted after 23c post to UW president

    8. Rapport breaks are a type of flirting where women throw you a faux indicator of disinterest to see how you handle it. If you respond in kind then you pass. In essence it is a form of mirroring each other's level of investment, or as they say, like attracts like.

      So why are rapport breaks a form of flirting? The main reason is that it gives women a degree of emotional stimulation. Plus there's the fact that most men buckle to women's shit tests and don't respond in kind. This demonstrates a lack of social acumen and emotional maturity. Those who "pass" show they can handle the woman's BS and is "on her level", so to speak. This is where the evolutionary theory comes into play: you're demonstrating her faux negativity doesn't phase you and that you're an emotionally developed person who isn't going to melt down at the first sign of trouble. Ergo you'll be able to protect her when threats to her safety emerge.

      In short, when women bust on you (could be a shit test or otherwise) you should reply in kind. When it comes right down to it this is the core essence of flirting.

      My go-to advice for how to deal with shit tests are as follows:

      Agree & amplify (to absurdity)
      Change the subject
      Ignore her shit test completely
      Pressure Flip
      The Nuclear Option (reserved for women who aren't flirting and are giving shit tests because they're deliberately trying to tool you, or worse)
      Command respect
      Note: Every single one of these is a form of rapport break.

  10. OP based on my read through layers of 6a's and 6e's links, I think your situation is more hopeful than the psychologist victim at Counselling Services.

    In her case, the perpetrator was and could remain second in command of their department and its social network. So he has a lot of power, and his harassment and reprisals are condoned by the director department head, who performs his own reprisals against the victim because she came forward.

    Not much is said about what's become of the original victim who didn't come forward. I don't know if she still works at Counselling Services. If so, it would be instructive to contrast her work situation in the intervening years to the complainant's.

    In your situation, though difficult, no such power difference exists. So your harasser does not necessarily have power, or its balance from your shared group, over you.

    In one of the OMG posts, there is reference to "The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander." I think this book will be instructive to you, as it talks about how to evaluate your social group's layout and members. The aim of this is to identify allies who would frown upon your bully's behaviour, or more actively stand by you against the bully and his harassing. You would approach these potential allies before confronting the bully. Start with the person you feel would be most supportive.

    The aim though obvious to you would be to stop the bullying, while preserving the valuable, supportive part of your social group.

    I hope this is helpful for you. If you'd like further help, please respond here.

    1. WTF, why do you keep trying to discuss that story? It has nothing to do with OP's situation. Since you are acting in bad faith and you are using this thread to smear Counselling Services (as opposed to trying to help OP), I will repeat my replies to 6:

      This witch hunt is ridiculous to be fair. That person was convicted in a court of justice and has paid his debt to society. If you think that he hasn't paid enough that's your opinion, but you can't put him on trial again on OMGUW. That's not how this works.

      This thread has nothing to do with the person at Counseling Services. Someone keeps bringing up that case on every possible thread, and posts outraged comments such as "The creep from 6a's sexual assault links is still here on campus. From the links, his victim told him to stop too and he didn't. Just like OP. How is this in our best interest? Why am I paying his salary? Can I opt-out?". This is the witch hunt I am talking about.

      The Counseling Services situation is not ongoing! These events happened several years ago and the person responsible was tried and convicted. I think this kind of posts only discourages people to attend Counselling Services, when they may need it. This is very irresponsible, especially in this thread.

    2. 10a, good point about the creep still working here and I'm paying his salary. I don't want that either. How can I opt-out?

    3. 10a yes it does look like Counselling Services continues a witch hunt against her for protesting.

    4. KEK here we go again, the Counselling Services ass-graber.
      The girl who was "assaulted" is a notorious liar and attention seeker. From the threads posted by @6, the guy paid tens of thousands of dollars for merely gabbing her ass at a party where they were both drunk. The girl claimed she had PTSD because of that event, so it's a total crock of shit. I wonder if it's herself who keeps hijaking those OMGUW threads. It's been 9 years ffs, move on. Nobody cares.

    5. 10d, speak for yourself. I care and I want to know what's going on.

    6. 10d, that's pretty harsh. You seem really upset, why? How do you know them?

    7. 10a and 10d, it looked like 10 got helpful information from the links, and told OP just what to do. That's what OP asked for "Please tell me what to do". That doesn't look like highjacking at all.

    8. @10g Then why bring up that story again? What purpose does it serve? We have discussed this a million times on OMGUW, and here we are again talking about the Counselling Services "sexual assaults". This is clearly a smear campaign against Counselling Services.

    9. 10d/h, Because I didn't know. 9 years that's 2 generations of students. I'm new and want to know. What gives you the right to say I'm not allowed to know?

    10. 10h, Why? Because it's a harassment case study right here on campus, with links on this site. OP asked what to do about harassment she's getting. We're on Omguw. The links are about what a psychologist on staff did about it when the same thing happened to her. So we're reading them. Duh.

    11. 10h do you know them? Your 10d post is way over the top.

    12. Nothing but bait here eh?

    13. If 10d is the level of Counselling Service's anger against the psychologist after 9 years, now I'm worried for her current work conditions. I never want to go there, especially for things in any way related to what she's going through. (So I'll go without UW counselling service, while I pay their fees) So unfair.

    14. @10m I am the person who wrote @10d, and I am not associated with Counselling Services in any way. Please see @11i.

    15. 10n I dont believe u

  11. 10e/f, I'm upset because people like OP could benefit from visiting Counselling Services and this non-story blown out of proportion is discouraging them from going there.

    1. 11 everything you said in 10d sounds angry and personal. And you want OP to go to Counselling Services. Do you counsel with that mouth?

    2. ^ wtf... just because I defended Counselling Services doesn't mean I work there. But it doesn't take a psychologist to see that you suffer from severe paranoia and persecution complex. I think you have been exposed once and for all in this thread. I hope you will seek help and stop using this website for therapy.

    3. 11b/10d if I go to Counselling Services, can you write that in a note to my prof?

    4. 11b we all saw how personal (and yes angry) your 10d post was against her...

    5. 11b and 10d, so you feel your group calling her those names is the same thing as defending Counselling Services? Because you got asked about the first and you talked about the second.

    6. 11b dude sorry but your busted

    7. I agree with what people said above and it is clear to me 10d's message was over the top.
      However, I think both sides have gone too far at this point. What scares me is that the people involved have been doxed (see threads linked by 6 and there seems to be a lot of hostility against both of them.
      Furthermore the aggressor seems indeed to have become the victim of a witch hunt: there are constant calls for him to be fired despite the disciplinary measures already taken by the UW admin and the courts.
      This discussion doesn't belong on OMGUW imho. I don't think anyone here has enough information to take sides and angry mobs on the Internet are not especially prone to pass reasonable judgements. Can we just trust our justice system for dealing with this case appropriately? The name-calling on OMGUW will not resolve anything.

    8. 11b"But it doesn't take a psychologist to see that you suffer from severe paranoia and persecution complex."
      Uh, yeah, I think it does. But since you know those words, I also guess you're a wannabe psychologist.

    9. I am the person who wrote @10d and I want to apologize and withdraw all my comments. I have had a long discussion with a friend of mine today, and I have come to the conclusion that I was in the wrong. My interpretation of this incident was exclusively based on comments read on OMGUW and it was a very biased interpretation. I don't know any of the people involved and I am not associated with Counselling Services in any way. I did attend Counselling Services numerous times and I was very satisfied with their services. I don't know anyone there who would come on OMGUW to bash on their colleague. In fact, I don't think most of them are even aware of the sexual harassement incident (as @6c has mentioned). So don't blame them for what is said here... this forum is mostly students trolling and shitposting.

    10. 10d, 11, 11b
      I guess some workers think they show loyalty and defend their employer Counselling Services by calling her names among themselves.

    11. Re 11g this omg has the attention of UW's executive, public relations, legal department, or all 3.

    12. I'm too lazy to read all the drama. Can someone fill me in?

    13. In the name of all that's good and holy, 10d, 11 and 11b, this is to you.
      You are not helping your cause. Your posts are incriminating to yourself, your group, as well as being damaging to Counselling Services' and the University's reputation. Please get better advice before continuing to post.

    14. 11l, Looks like a Counselling Services counsellor just unloaded here at the psychologist who reported a sexual harassment and reprisal case against him and the department. He called her a bunch of derogatory names, and accidentally linked himself a group that shares a common view of her. He very recently got advice and is trying to retract and apologize. The university and him are in full damage control.

    15. That department's in need of a leadership wipe. On a co-op job my employer had leadership and governance series on the importance of "Tone from the top". This is textbook.

    16. Hey 11i/10d don't blame your behavior on us students. If you're going to fess up, then own it. None of us students has the memory to get that angry about a 9-year thing "ffs" as you put it.

    17. 11i, your post is meaningless damage-control. Denial of who you are and where you work makes your post worthless. Passing yourself of as a student is a disservice to students, who are your clients. You have betrayed our trust. Get out and take your cowardly group with you.

    18. 9 years ago I was ten. I didn't care then but I do today (ffs)

    19. 11i why are you apologizing to us?? Apologize to HER!

    20. Can someone tell the CBC about this omg? They just did an article on another uni and asked for info.

    21. @11m @11n etc (I don't know if it's the same person posting several comments trying to start something...)

      Ok, this is my last post here. I have apologized for my comment because it was wrong. I was misinformed, got angry and directed my anger at the wrong person. Also btw I got mixed up with another case, because what we are discussing here didn't happen 9 years ago but in 2013. I take responsibility for that post and I retract it. I apologize to the person concerned by this case, because the derogatory comments weren't meant for her.
      But I won't take responsibility for people believing in conspiracy theories anymore. I have no association with CS (other than being a client) or the UW admin, and I had no idea people believed that. If me denying it doesn't convince you, I don't think anything will. This whole thing started long before I jumped in and your pitchforks were already high in the air when I posted that comment.

    22. thats awful. I think she was just trying to stay away from the boogie man

    23. Hmmm I don't think 10d was written by a counsellor. Sounds more like a teenage """"redpilled men's rights activist"""", not something a grown man would write. His way of apologizing does seem like damage control, but let's not jump to conclusions people!

    24. It's fine to be angry as long as u dont act Stupid.
      Gangstar sounds like my dream man.

    25. What do u mean by grown man?

    26. 11y, I mean the counsellor would be in his 40s or 50s, I doubt he would use words like "KEK" or "ffs". I mean it is possible, but very very doubtful.

    27. oh well the counsellor would have to start somewhere lol.

    28. 11g not doxed. All the links are to the same public website we're on. that scares you more than a UW staff group talking crap lies about one of their own for god knows how long?

    29. 11w oh because you didn't jump to any conclusions? dont blame us, or teenagers, or redpillers. my friends and I are reading this and don't believe anything you guys wrote after 10d

    30. 11u "I apologize to the person concerned by this case, because the derogatory comments weren't meant for her." who were the derogatory comments meant for? U were really specific so not buying it

    31. 11i just substituted different lies in the "apology" as the 10d rant.
      10d: lies about the co-worker, but is really specific and knowledgeable about who she is. Unmistakable description.
      11i looks 100% lies:
      lies about who he is (CS staff, not student).
      lies about who he got advice from (UW legal, not friend),
      lies about where he got info (from his own involvement with victim and in the department, not from omg),
      lies about not knowing people involved (knows enough ppl involved to know and share their angry views, not an outsider),
      his association (works there, not an outsider),
      attending counselling (works there, not a client),
      satisfaction with CS services (is a CS counsellor, not CS service receiver),
      knowing victim bashers (participates as in 10d, not ignorant of toxic worker group),
      knowledge of incident (he knows bashers know and have "notorious" view, not innocent group),
      who's to blame (him and them the coworkers for posts, not students),
      who's demeaned her here (him and his group, not students)

    32. 11u, If you're not a CS staff, how do you know what they know or heard?
      Did CS staff tell you during your sessions? You know a lot about many of their thoughts. And why the marketing for CS, if you have no association? Just decided on a commercial break for them during your apology?
      Face it. You talked with UW legal and they told you what to write. or they wrote it and posted this themselves

    33. 11ad, 11w here. Look, I don't really care, it might well be a CS employee for all I know. I was merely providing a different opinion, because I've nver seen anyone write "KEK" or "ffs" in messages except teenagers. Jeez calm down, nobody is blaming """""THE TEENAGERS""""", just saying 10d seems written by a teenager. Comprende?

    34. its only a true apology if you the real you! walk over to her desk and say sorry to her for this face to face. with a hand-delivered note

    35. 11ah/w "Hmmm I don't think 10d was written by a counsellor" "not something a grown man would write"
      but a grown man counsellor, the one at CS, harassed her. Was that what you thought he'd do? Who is that angry at her? And know all that about the counsellors and their views of her? A teenage student?

    36. What if 11i isn't the same person who wrote 10d? What if it's one of the trolls trying to make it seem like CS is doing damage control? The writing style is very different after all. This seems like the most plausible explanation.

    37. 11ak now UW is trying damage control for their damage control. (when UWs damage control post caused more damage to themselves and the angry counsellor).
      As for style, I'm sure the 10d counsellor can sound apologetic when caught. Or treat most people with respect and one with anger.

  12. This is OP.
    First of all, thank you all for the replies, it's great to know that people care.
    A follow-up: I stopped hanging out with him and whatever he said to me I just gave one-word replies. (Though this happened before this post is published.) I still see him around but I think he got the hint and probably won't do it again.

    Oh and, thank you 1A for being so oblivious.

    1. OP that's great it's all working now for you. I want to know about the case since it's new to me. Can anyone give more clickable links about it?

    2. OP so you stopped going to your every morning classes that he's in? That's not the answer. Keep going to class! I thought it was the unnecessary body contact that's gross to you, not what he says. Do you mean you stopped hanging out with your many mutual friends? Don't cut yourself off from them.

    3. Thread hijacked again. You are fucking stupid if you believe you are being subtle.

    4. 12, I don't get how giving him 1-word answers to his talking would stop his physical stuff, when at first you said that saying stop and slapping him didn't work. Stop was a 1-word answer you already tried and it didn't work, and he gave an excuse. Am I missing something?

    5. ^12's not OP.

  13. Replies
    1. Thread hijacked again (by the same person). You are fucking stupid if you believe you are being subtle.

  14. Thanks 6a/12c/13. I just saw a weird "Load more..." link at the very bottom of omg 18476, below comment #51. It's centered just above the 3 "Newer" "Home" and "Older" buttons. When I clicked on it, 9 more comments appeared, from 51a to 54. Does anyone know why? I haven't seen comments hidden like that before on this site.

    1. ^Same happened when I tried, using 6a's link. OMG18476 has like 213 comments. That's the most I've seen on this site. Maybe there's a view limit of 204 comments for OMGUW.

    2. ^same. Do you know context for omg18476 51b "nose in my muff"? Curious but lazy.

    3. Thread hijaked again. This is an organized witch hunt and smear campaign.

    4. 14c Huh? You calling every post you don't like a highjack? Sheesh. I can read for myself. Stop overreacting.

    5. ^ I didn't say I like or don't like. I'm just observing the fact that a person/group of persons are bringing up a subject which has nothing to do with this thread.

    6. Well if you're just observing why are you swearing

  15. Now that I have read the many past posts and the court case about her work situation, I feel I owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Tracy Morgan for her bravery, and for her tireless work to make this campus safer for all women, including OP.

    The posts of these days serve to highlight these years. Ironies abound. For her deep duty, she is deeply punished. Though she sought relief and justice, neither were delivered, but their opposite. And so she pays the price of being subjected to continued layers of reprisals from those around her daily.

    All under suppressing cover of privacy and an entrenched poisoned atmosphere, which not a student but the institution of the University of Waterloo holds sole responsibility for allowing to thicken and perpetuate. If it's any consolation to her, we know now, we know tonight.

    Dr. Morgan, after all these years we expect you're so tired. We will watch tirelessly.

    A wise man said "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".
    All eyes on Counselling Services.

    1. because its 2016

    2. *cringe* what's with the feminist mob at this school seriously? I don't condone the insults above, but I am beginning to see why so many people are pissed.
      You make it sound like Dr. Morgan deserves a Nobel Peace Prize or something, or that Counselling Services is some sort of concentration camp.
      Do you honestly think that anyone would keep a job for several years if she was constantly harassed and bullied? Do you think anyone who opens a file with the Humans Rights Commission over sexual harassment would have any problem opening another file if she was facing reprisal by her department? Come on, don't be ridiculous. Choose your battles...

    3. 15b, As far as I am concerned, you are as bad as any sexual aggressor. You are an enabler of misogyny and sexual violence against women.

      A woman was assaulted by her co-worker and superior. Instead of firing the perpetrator and congratulating the woman for coming forward, the department gave him a promotion and did everything in their power to silence her.

      Even knowing these facts, you somehow found a way to blame the victim and sympathize with the criminal. Why? BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN AND HE IS A MAN.

      How can any woman feel safe on this campus with people like you around? People who think that sexual harassement is no big deal and women should just shut up?

      This thread is horrifying and eye-opening.

    4. 15b umm you missed calling cringe by 2.5 days on 10d

    5. 15c

      > As far as I am concerned you are as bad as any sexual aggressor

      Stopped reading there. You go right back to Tumblr.

    6. I agree with 15c. is awful

    7. 15 on it boss

    8. 15, eyes turned

  16. OP is Troll. Who looks for real advice for their real problems on OMGUW? Really?

    Just clickbait for feminist keyboard warriors to vent.

  17. Dr Morgan did same as OP. Reported in the hope the harassment would stop against herself, not the whole campus of women. Innocently did her best to get her environment safe for her. In Dr Morgan's case it looks like it took years of writing and filing reports. All without a lawyer. The HRTO system and UW's ultimately failed her.

    But each woman on campus who reports, sheds light that can help the next woman, trying to learn what to do when harassment finds her.

    I imagine that due to work restrictions, her words and actions are under strictest scrutiny.

    The battle choose her. Like OP she didn't ask for it.

    1. 17, If you aren't trolling, can you please explain what is this "battle" you are talking about? Here are the facts:

      - OP was touched on the shoulders and thighs and solved her problem by ignoring the guy.

      - Dr. Morgan was touched on her buttocks by a drunk man at a party. While this is certainly inappropriate, she was awarded $7500 in punitive damages, so I wouldn't be completely unsatisfied if I were her.

      I'm only trying to understand your world view and why you believe this is such a big deal.

    2. 17a 12wasn't OP. the fix made no sense. see 12b/e

  18. go read the many linked hrto docs just like us. I guess 17 meant by battle all the ways the man at work and UW do to get back at her for telling. at first and all the things since that first time she asked to stop

    1. this was to 17a

    2. Yeah sorry but it all seems like bullshit and overreaction tbh

    3. no its just right

  19. anyone seen signs of the CS toxic atmosphere against her spread to other UW depts like legal, PR, HR, or UW's executive?

  20. Thread taken over by retarded feminist trolls. RIP

    1. It's been taken over for a long time XD

    2. I stopped replying to them... just a bunch of trolls looking for attention.

  21. 11i why would a teenaged student apologize? why would his friend call him out or know or advise him in a long talk on monday morning? why would he defend CS? why would he go out of his way to distance himself from CS?

    1. do you have mental issues?

    2. my feminist friends always have long sit-downs with me about my bad anonymous redpill omg posts they convince me fast then I feel really bad and say sorry on omg the next day just like 11i

    3. 21a I dunno about mental issues. ask 11b, who diagnosed 11a

    4. League question: I don't believe that 10d/11i is a student since: if he and his advice-giving friend both had so much time to talk, why wouldn't they use the time to play league instead of apologizing for an anonymous post?

  22. 21a, in 11i's apology for 10d he claimed he's a student, not a CS counsellor. 21's questions poke holes in that excuse.

    1. why do you keep making new posts? Why not reply to 11i if you have a problem with him? This thread isn't about Counselling Services in the first place. Are you doing it on purpose or do you have some sort of mental issue?

    2. @22a it's a troll, just ignore it lol

    3. MODS! Why is this thread not locked yet?

    4. 21a and 22a ask "do you have mental issues" two more counsellors who think this omg is the CS waiting room. yes we have ... "severe paranoia and persecution complex" according to your 11b friend

    5. @22d
      > severe paranoia and persecution complex

      Pretty much nailed it.

    6. 22e all those terms make sense to you too? if its this quick to get diagnosed by Counselling Services counsellors like yourself, since your around on this omg, why does it take so long to get appointments there? maybe you all need longer to do lists than we thought. get back to work.

    7. Garety, Kuipers, Fowler, Freeman, and Bebbington (2001) have proposed a new model
      of the positive symptoms of psychosis. In this paper the model is applied to one specific
      symptom: persecutory delusions. Given the complex nature of psychosis, such
      specification may be clinically and theoretically useful. The positive symptoms of
      psychosis frequently co-occur, but symptom-specific models can facilitate theory and
      treatment development, as has been found for anxiety disorders (see Clark & Fairburn,
      1997). The model was developed with the aim of being helpful for clinicians using
      psychological approaches for the problems of individuals with persecutory delusions.

    8. The model is complex, despite the focus on a single symptom. This is because
      multiple factors are incorporated. However, we argue that only a multifactorial
      understanding of symptom development and maintenance adequately reflects the
      phenomenon (Garety & Freeman, 1999; Garety & Hemsley, 1994). In short, the causes
      of delusions, even of the same content-type, are likely to vary between individuals. Why
      then focus upon persecutory delusions? There are two main reasons. The first is that
      persecutory delusions are likely to have common maintaining factors. This is because
      they have a common theme of the ‘anticipation of danger’: they are threat beliefs.
      Similarly, the psychological conceptualization of anxiety disorders is that they are threat
      beliefs. Therefore, many of the processes implicated in the maintenance of anxiety
      disorders (Clark, 1999) should be implicated in the maintenance of persecutory
      delusions (Freeman & Garety, 1999, 2002). The second reason for focusing on
      persecutory delusions is because of their clinical relevance. They are one of the most
      frequently occurring delusions (Cutting, 1997) and symptoms of psychosis (World
      Health Organization, 1973). They are also associated with distress—more so, for
      example, than grandiose delusions. Finally, possession of a persecutory belief often has
      clear ramifications for the individual concerned. For example, Wessely et al. (1993)
      report that persecutory beliefs are the most likely type of delusion to be acted upon,
      and Castle, Phelan, Wessely, and Murray (1994) found that the presence of a
      persecutory delusion is a predictor of admission to hospital.
      The discussion will concern delusions associated with diagnoses of non-affective
      functional psychosis since these are the disorders in which systematic research has
      occurred, but the model will have relevance for the understanding of delusions in other
      disorders. The model builds upon the work of other authors, notably Maher,
      Birchwood, Chadwick, and Bentall, and the research team’s own clinical and theoretical
      studies. The differences from the more general framework of Garety et al. (2001) are
      those of emphasis. The model of persecutory delusions has greater emphasis on
      processes that are typically associated with anxiety. Maintenance factors are grouped
      differently. The hypotheses concern both delusional conviction and accompanying
      distress (delusional distress, anxiety, and depression). Aspects of the content of
      persecutory beliefs are incorporated.

    9. Building on previous accounts that implicate defences against self-esteem (Colby et al., 1979; Zigler & Glick, 1988), we have argued that paranoid patients have latent negative
      self-representations or schemata similar to the more accessible negative selfrepresentations
      observed in depressed patients (Bentall et al., 1994). When these
      negative self-representations are primed by threatening events, leading to discrepancies
      between the self-representations and self-ideals, external (other-blaming) attributions
      for the threatening events are elicited. These attributions are self-protective in the
      sense that they reduce the patient’s awareness of discrepancies between the self and
      self-ideals, but carry the penalty of activating schemata that represent threats from

  23. 10d "The girl who was "assaulted" is a notorious liar and attention seeker."
    "The girl claimed she had PTSD because of that event, so it's a total crock of shit." 
    "It's been 9 years ffs, move on. Nobody cares."

    1. The talker, this one you protect? Breathtaking boundless cowardice from those whose roles include her protection. From Counselling Services all the way up to the top of house.

    2. Sure 23a, someone wouldn't just write that to get outraged reactions. It MUST be UW Counseling Services chasing their psychologist around the Internet to publicly shame her because muh patriarchy and muh oppression. Give me a break.

    3. 11u "(I don't know if it's the same person posting several comments trying to start something...)" no counsellor, you started something when you harassed Dr Morgan. You were never punished by UW HR, its Executive, or its President. And you continued unrestricted at your workplace through the years.

      In anger your mask slipped March 19th. A viscious, contemptible attack at Dr. Morgan. Your forced apology was more lies behind the switched mask of a student. You never did and never will take blame yourself, or stop the spread of your now exposed hateful view of Dr Morgan among those you influence.
      Now we all know.

      UW President Dr. Feridun Hamdullahpur this is at your feet, at your office door. Will you close the door against Dr. Morgan again? Or will you choose to do the right thing, this time? In light of your employee's recent statements. Ask your staff for the truth. It is your role, your responsibility, your authority. You have a fiduciary duty. We know you hear the door.

    4. because its 2016

  24. We know you hear the door, Dr. Hamdullahpur! As long as the door is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the Counselling Services question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all womynkind. Dr. Hamdullahpur, tear down this wall!

    1. 24 this is serious

    2. What? You think walls aren't serious? This country is a disaster! Nobody respects us anymore! Let me tell you, I would build a great wall, a beautiful wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build it very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for it!!

  25. uh I take it 23c's "post to UW president" struck a nerve. why