Gross women

[Pickle]

The award for most bonkers thread of the week goes to....

V entertaining :)

[lameduck]

Can you get groped on a bus?

I think it is time for me to ditch the car!

[Louisa]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well there's an example of insanity

>

> By your logic Louisa we should also ban the

> following......

>

> Flowers or any pollen bearing plant

>

> Animals

>

> The wearing and/or use of any kind of deoderant,

> makeup, perfume or chemical based beaty product.

>

> Nylon, rubber and parafin based products

>

> I could go on.

>

> But as someone else posted, there's no point using

> reasoned debate with someone who has no conception

> of it.

I think up until this point this discussion was starting to become a bit polarised, but now you've brought all these other potentially life threatening acts of public indecency to my attention lets address them one by one, because DJKQ, just as WM has this fascination with breast feeding, you now seem to be able to go over and above medical opinion and conclude that makeup and moisturiser are perfectly safe for everyone and you have no evidence to back it up! Astonishing! You not only thoroughly legitimise unsavoury public acts in confined spaces, you now justify them by claiming to know that everyone who talks about any known allergies within 2/3 metres to be completely wrong! Allelujah, we have a scientist within our midst!

I would ban leather jackets and rubber/PVC from buses and trains but that's just because I wouldn't want anyone to have a flare up of an ongoing allergy. Obviously we can't ban everything everywhere but we can go a long way towards saving lives and encouraging some thoughtful morality in a public space at the same time. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I'm genuinely confused.

This thread has now taken on a whole new dimension. It isn't just a discussion amongst lay men and women, we have experts here too.

Louisa.

[Louisa]

lameduck - bus groping happens a lot and its a very unpleasant experience for anyone at the receiving end of it. I drive my car because I like my own space and my own rules. I personally wouldn't want grubby hands all over me, nor wold I want to risk siting next to a peanut muncher or a loud handheld device user.

Louisa.

[lameduck]

Dear Louisa I havent been groped for about half hour

I dont mean to poke fun at you

have a nice easter

[DJKillaQueen]

Louisa that's not what I have said and you know it. Nowhere have I denied that people have allergies (to anything). What I dispute is your argument that because one person has an allergy to makeup, another should be banned from using it in a public place. Thankfully science doesn't agree with you, otherwise use of such things would be banned in the interests of the public health altogher (just as many chemicals are).

See a comment like this is an example of your lunacy....

"Obviously we can't ban everything everywhere but we can go a long way towards saving lives and encouraging some thoughtful morality in a public space"

Tell me how many people have died because people apply makeup in a public space, or wear a leather jacket. Go on, back up your ridiculous claim with hard facts.

You can patronise all you like Louisa, but nowhere have you presented a well reasoned and logical debate, whereas others have.

[Otta]

Good to have Louisa back. An old skool EDFer who knows how to play a thread.

[KidKruger]

People get groped on buses - seriously ?

And why are the gropers' hands always grubby ?!

[*Bob*]

Lou always asks to see their nails first.

No washee, no gropee.

[KidKruger]

Which buse(s) ?

Is it only girls getting groped ?

[Louisa]

DJKQ, by your argument, smoking would be allowed on a bus because its a personal experience and just because it might contribute to a serious illness in another person, doesn't mean it should be banned? Well, it was banned, and for the very reasons you claim other antisocial forms of behaviour shouldn't be. Eating peanuts is fine, even though it might set off a life threatening reaction in another person? Why not just ban eating altogether and the problem is removed. Saves dirty interior of public transport seating too. I don't need to back up my argument with any facts, because you've failed to back up yours and yet you believe I am the patronising one in this debate? Is that because you are losing the argument by any chance? And who are these "others" who have presented a "well reasoned and logical debate"? As far as I can see we have two sides to a very clear cut argument. This isn't about MY personal tastes, it's about public thoughtfulness and decency for everyone. You either support my argument, which is that manners cost nothing and certain forms of behaviour should be prohibited in a confused public space - because in many people's view (including posters on this thread) they are selfish and annoying, and my further point that they can let off a strong odour and potentially cause people with allergies to react is just an additional reason as to why certain activities should be refrained from. Not to mention this isolated and hideous bubble created around the individual preventing social cohesion and a community spirit. Or we support your argument - which is basically saying we can't ban everything which is antisocial because we can't police or enact it properly, and it's a matter of personal taste so if you don't like it then that's your problem. I know which side I support.

Louisa.

[KidKruger]

Louisa, the majority of people don't have extreme nut allergy, adverse reactions to Max Factor mascara type 297Q-HL101 or suffer epileptic fits at the slightest smell of a soya milk latte, which is why these items are allowed on a bus.

You seem to be trying to turn the public arena into a minorities-led care home.

[Louisa]

KK I've heard of instances of groping on all forms of public transport. I think trains are more likely than buses, especially if the incidence of standing passengers.

*Bob* fortunately for me I've not been at the receiving end of a grope to date, but the thought of having grubby hands on me makes me feel violently ill. Makeup wearing may even be temporarily acceptable in replacement for grubby handed groping.

Louisa.

[DJKillaQueen]

No it wouldn't Louisa..because smoke is easily inhaled by EVERYONE in the room and is a KNOWN carcinogenic. I make a clear distinction between clearly harmful to everyone substances, and allergies that are easily managed by those who suffer from them. Now science and the law also make the same distinction so why can't you? You will have to do better than that.....The only person losing this debate is you.

You are right about one thing though.....Your view is about you own personal tastes and has nothing to do with public health, science or immorality even for that matter. On that I think just about everyone can agree.

[seemster]

Hallelujah! Louisa says we can apply/wear make-up if it's in an attempt - albeit a vain attempt - to avoid being groped!

[DJKillaQueen]

Good...does that mean we win finally? :D

[seemster]

I'd say we deserve a gold medal!

[Louisa]

NO!

Louisa.

[Louisa]

Science and the law make the same distinction NOW - but go back fifty years or less and neither believed smoking to be a bad thing. I refer back to an earlier argument about changing times and opinions - perhaps if we came back in fifty years from now we would have a different opinion. It takes pioneers such as myself to stand up and explain to people where we are going wrong in society and law and science eventually adapts.

And as I stated before, these aren't just my personal views. A lot of people back them. I think your losing this argument DJKQ and you are clutching at straws.

Louisa.

[Louisa]

seemster, sometimes groping is unavoidable in a cramped space. Even with poorly applied makeup unfortunately.

Louisa.

[DJKillaQueen]

And 50 years ago we didn't have the advanced bio/medical research techniques that we have now.

Louisa you are like a dog with a rotten bone. Cosmetics are one of the most heavily tested substabces out there....they do not kill people...they do not affect a whole room of people in the way a carcinogenic gas does...WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

Now you still haven't answered this question...

"Obviously we can't ban everything everywhere but we can go a long way towards saving lives and encouraging some thoughtful morality in a public space"

Tell me how many people have died because people apply makeup in a public space, or wear a leather jacket. Go on, back up your ridiculous claim with hard facts.

That's how debate works Louisa....people pick holes in your comments and if you don't fill them...you lose the debate.

[KidKruger]

Actually I can align to Louisa's angle to a small extent, not even 10 years ago I was at the end of my tether over smoking in public places - I'd be having a meal and a couple on the next table would light-up, ruining the evening out, for me and partner. I felt extremely hard done by, not being able to eat a basic meal without choking on the arsenic/lead/ammonia combo. Every pub, club, gig. It seemed obvious to me that this smoke was shit (and so did the science). But not only that, the clever bastards who could mix a couple of hundred chemicals to the ever-decreasing proportion of tobacco to reduce burn rate and protect the bronchial tract from the damage that inhaling smoke should do, could not even make it smell half-decent. Always stank like shit.

I felt like the only sane person, constantly bothered by the stench.

Then I lucked-out and the Govt decided those kinds of places had to be non-smoking zones.

I still after several years cannot believe that it actually happened.

The moral is don't give up, always maintain hope, you know what's best, hopefully one day the rest of society will one day catch-up with you.

[DJKillaQueen]

But even you must agree KK that aligning smoking to the use of makeup is a poor analogy?

[dulwich2020]

Jeez, I should of titled this annoying women Instead of gross women, but I do find it gross to watch. all I'm saying is personal grooming is just that and should be done in private. It's not always so easy to look away if someone is sat opposite or next to you in the rush hour hour will a full carrier back of makeup and there is nowhere to move to. Louisa makes perfect sense to me, I'm not talking about a bit of lipstick. It's the full base, powder, eye liners lip liner mascara and big blusher brush that annoys me. And eating food! Most other countries I've been to ban eating on bus and trains and its so much nicer, I saw a women on the 12 eating KFC on the 12 bus. Drop the bones on the floor and discretely wipe her hands on the seat. Nice! Can't wait to find a way to get back into my car to get to work.

[DJKillaQueen]

Dropping litter (or chicken bones) is an offence punishable by fine, so laws do exist to curb the anti-social aspects of certain behaviour but where are the personel to enforce it? It's all very well demanding to outlaw every little annoyance but we aren't very good at enforcing the laws that do already exist. Perhaps if they were enforced better you might see the more considerate society you seem to think doesn't exist.

What also irks me is when people use an anti-social aspect of an action (like dropping litter) to call for an outright ban on something (eating). It's an over-reaction which has little to do with the root irritant.

And if women with handbags are annoying then equally annoying are men sitting with their legs splayed. Women wear makeup...men sit with legs splayed.....it's life and neither really harm anyone.