Helen Mirren thinks holding an arm around your girlfriend is sexist - Polidicks

So what she's criticizing is men putting their arm around their girl as a display of "ownership", as in "she's my girl". I get it. Now, where is her criticism of women who also put on displays of "ownership"? The bottom line is that it isn't an act of "ownership", but an act of insecurity. Both men AND women do it when they are feeling insecure about their relationship, not because they want to "own" their significant other. By approaching this the way she does, she completely misses the root cause of the issue, and misrepresents it as a gender issue instead of a self esteem/confidence issue.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;48689958]I legitimately cannot work out what's funnier. This dumb bullshit; Or this dumb bullshit; It's a tough fucking choice man. One is somebody who genuinely seems to think they're "fighting the good fight" against a super-minority of totally ineffectual people on the Internet that the real world largely doesn't know exists. And the other has managed to spin somebodies personal opinion on a matter that wasn't even calling for their execution to such a degree that they think they can play the victim. The "anti-socjus" shit is getting fucking silly now. You are the victims of nothing, fighting against nothing using totally useless tactics like insulting the strawmen you've built. Take a step back from the keyboard, think about what you're doing for a bit and come back with some actual understanding of just what you think you're fighting, because it's not what you think it is.[/QUOTE] Its always funny seeing how you jump to yell "straw man!" every time one of these articles comes up. Not really a straw man, these people exist, pretending they dont doesnt really serve a purpose. I get that they make the less insane people on their "side" look bad, but quite frankly, you shouldnt care. If you dont agree with them there is no need to defend them, you aren't part of their group, if you think you are then change "groups". Getting tired of seeing nobody ever actually debate the points, just assumptions of exactly who is accusing who or whatever nebulous group of being whatever brand of nebulous crazy then people talking past eachother over those points.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;48691234]Didn't a friend of hers get death threats from various SJWs [I]after she got raped[/I]? Gee whiz, why wouldn't she support these lovely people. Ppppfffffhhhahahahahaha. Fucking seriously. If you really believe those are anything close to SJWs you might need to consider switching to different drugs. SocJus may claim to support some of the ideals as the people you mentioned, but it doesn't change that to this day, as a movement and as a set of ideals, it's mostly comprised of ...and a whole lot of downright horrifying lumps of human trash. Do you want me to name someone who would oppose today's SocJus? Hell look no further than MLK himself. He believed in judging people by their actions and not by their skin color, a notion that SJWs now find "problematic". He dreamed of a future where white and black kids would not be separated, and now SJWs argue in support of race segregated classrooms and other similar shit under the guise of "safe spaces". In all honesty, I don't think you've got any idea about the people you're defending so strongly. SocJus today is one of the most hypocritical, racist, sexist, absolutely bat shit movements I've ever seen. If there's one thing they're known for, is doing their best to destroy the lives of anyone who disagrees with them, even if they happen to be the minorities they claim to love and support so much. Should you claim it's just a loud fraction of it pulling the shit we've all seen, then the rest of it isn't doing jack shit to stop them. Is it tacit approval? Is it fear of retribution from the more radical members? In any case, the entire ideology feels rotten to the core. Fuck them and everything they stand for. [editline]16th September 2015[/editline] And before you start whining about how "th-they stand for acceptance and equality guys believe me", no. They don't.[/QUOTE] Trust me, MLK would have been called an SJW if he existed during the era of the internet, which leads into my next point. What you don't understand about calling people SJWs is how wide that net is. I've seen people who are opposed to catcalling and victim blaming called SJWS. I've seen people who think that equal treatment under the law called SJWs. I've seen people who are against childhood bullying called SJWs. Fffs, I've even seen people are fine with interracial and gay realtionships called SJWs. Maybe one day you'll realize that SJW is nothing but a right-wing snarl word. But until that day comes, stop saying SocJus unironically. It's cringeworthy as fuck and makes you look like you have a copy of 1984 that has pages stuck together, if you know what Im saying.

What a load of shit, why are we even listening to stupid statements like this?

[QUOTE=axelord157;48692035]Trust me, MLK would have been called an SJW if he existed during the era of the internet, which leads into my next point. What you don't understand about calling people SJWs is how wide that net is. I've seen people who are opposed to catcalling and victim blaming called SJWS. I've seen people who think that equal treatment under the law called SJWs. I've seen people who are against childhood bullying called SJWs. Fffs, I've even seen people are fine with interracial and gay realtionships called SJWs. Maybe one day you'll realize that SJW is nothing but a right-wing snarl word. But until that day comes, stop saying SocJus unironically. It's cringeworthy as fuck and makes you look like you have a copy of 1984 that has pages stuck together, if you know what Im saying.[/QUOTE] SJW is a pejorative term, it doesn't mean anything except 'Radical Social Justice Advocate' or the like, what it specifically means depends on who uses it and what situation they use it in. Language is contextual. It's similar to how people use the phrase 'Radical Feminist' as opposed to just 'Feminist' when describing people like Julie Bindel. Would you prefer people say that Julie Bindel is representative of all feminists? You can't say she isn't a feminist, because she technically is one (she believes in equality between men and women, it's just that her vision of equality is having half the population segregated into concentration camps). That's why people use pejoratives and why the use of pejoratives is usually contextual, otherwise you'd have to be insanely precise and use phrases like 'radical sex-negative intersectional social justice maguffin burger'. Plus, in situations where you don't know what somebody politically identifies as, how else exactly do you say 'hey this person is a bit of a nutter' without offending half the populace? You can be a 'radical' or an 'extremist' anything, people make fun of 'right-wing nutters' all the time, isn't that unfair to reasonable right-wing people? Can you honestly say you've never used shorthand when referring to a group of people or stated your dislike for 'those people' when in conversation? Have you never referred to your ideological opponents as 'right-wing nutters' or something similar? If you have, then you've done exactly what people have done whenever they've shouted out 'SJW' or the like. The only difference is that when other people do it to you instead of the other way around, suddenly it matters because it's an ideological group that you personally identify with. It's a complete non-argument.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48691686]So what she's criticizing is men putting their arm around their girl as a display of "ownership", as in "she's my girl". I get it. Now, where is her criticism of women who also put on displays of "ownership"? The bottom line is that it isn't an act of "ownership", but an act of insecurity. Both men AND women do it when they are feeling insecure about their relationship, not because they want to "own" their significant other. By approaching this the way she does, she completely misses the root cause of the issue, and misrepresents it as a gender issue instead of a self esteem/confidence issue.[/QUOTE] It's kinda strange, I don't even do it to my gf as a sign of ownership, I just do it to bring her closer 2 me (da cuddles). But that's just me [editline]16th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Mattk50;48691769]Its always funny seeing how you jump to yell "straw man!" every time one of these articles comes up. Not really a straw man, these people exist, pretending they dont doesnt really serve a purpose. I get that they make the less insane people on their "side" look bad, but quite frankly, you shouldnt care. If you dont agree with them there is no need to defend them, you aren't part of their group, if you think you are then change "groups". Getting tired of seeing nobody ever actually debate the points, just assumptions of exactly who is accusing who or whatever nebulous group of being whatever brand of nebulous crazy then people talking past eachother over those points.[/QUOTE] just you wait buddy boy, we might have a 7-pager here

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48691686] The bottom line is that it isn't an act of "ownership", but an act of insecurity. Both men AND women do it when they are feeling insecure about their relationship, not because they want to "own" their significant other. By approaching this the way she does, [B]she completely misses the root cause of the issue, and misrepresents it as a gender issue instead of a self esteem/confidence issue[/B].[/QUOTE] lol what touching and wanting to be close to your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband is now an [I]issue[/I]??

[QUOTE=hexpunK;48690087]Oh boy they sure got slammed alright. On a forum that the people you'd probably call SJWs don't even use. Oh you showed them. .[/QUOTE] to name three "SJW's" that use or used this forum milkandcooki asteroidrules Maxof2SD

MLK totally would be a considered an SJW for being surrounded by socialists and having religiously based anti-capitalist feelings. Fucking Lenin would've been called an SJW for being influenced by Kollontai and preaching free love, divorce, abortion, and contraception, and bolsheviks would be called anti-white for a gap in policy towards the first world compared to the third. They'd also be called muslim coddlers for allowing Islamic conservative laws. Black panthers would be SJWs too for their social progressivism. They were all cetainly 'SJWs' of their time and still manage to, at minimum, completely alienate the center as way too left wing just as 'SJWs' do today. Every leftie dabbles in a culture war, deconstructing the traditions of the society that marginalizes them. When this goes beyond the center-left and its circus of marketable, electable politicians who would never say 'crazy' things, it bothers people and to shame the offender as an outlier and deviant, 'SJW' was born. Which is typical, people politically reacting to something generally rely on social shaming and trope-ification to deal with (relative) radicals. This is the basis for something later like 'silent majority' reprisals and other zeal based on appeals to authority or to nature.

I don't remember MLK being a passive-aggressive hyper-offended keyboard warrior. I definitely wouldn't call a man like him a SJW.

[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;48694721]I don't remember MLK being a passive-aggressive hyper-offended keyboard warrior. I definitely wouldn't call a man like him a SJW.[/QUOTE] The thing is, for his time, he was a total "social justice warrior." He had fringe beliefs that many people disagreed with, and he fought to uphold his viewpoints. Maybe he didn't have a tumblr or whatever but as a product of his time, if the term " SJW" was a thing back then, he would of definitely been labeled one. [editline]16th September 2015[/editline] Same as all the people axelord157 mentioned. Just because you agree with what they stood up for does not make them "SJWS of their time."

Like fuck seriously Susan B. Anthony was like the biggest "SJW" of her time. She tried to start what today could be called "safe space" churches, where all religions were welcomed and no one was turned away, she would get mad at her co-workers in the field of feminist activism for getting married/having children, and she petitioned for the abolishment of slaves and for the right for women to vote. Like that's totally social justice warrior-ing, its just a product of her time though, just like tumblr is a product of today.

According to this book, I was right about appraising the left as a whole in history as 'SJWs' [quote]Social Justice Warriors have plagued mankind for more than 150 years, but only in the last 30 years has their ideology become dominant in the West. Having invaded one institution of the cultural high ground after another, from corporations and churches to video games and government, there is nowhere that remains entirely free of their intolerant thought and speech policing. Because the SJW agenda of diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality flies in the face of both science and observable reality, SJWs relentlessly work to prevent normal people from thinking or speaking in any manner that will violate their ever-mutating Narrative. They police science, philosophy, technology, and even history in order to maintain the pretense that their agenda remains inevitable in a modern world that contradicts it on a daily basis. [/quote] [url]http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-ebook/dp/B014GMBUR4[/url]

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;48688351]Ughhh stop drawing attention to these people! These threads just play out the same way every time. Like these are just the shittiest threads in FP at this point. I'm not defending this chick, but people complaining about feminism or SJWs have really become as or even more annoying than the SJWs themselves. [editline]15th September 2015[/editline] epic posts, brothers![/QUOTE] You're likely startled you're used to seeing your ideals in a good light. I doubt that you recoil this badly when any other political group like conservatives and libertarians receive the same flak. There are bad eggs in every political ideal.

SJW has pretty much just become a word for someone who says something progressive you don't like, which is annoying, because there is a very specific sort of toxic mindset that doesn't really have any other concise lable to point it out with.

sjw doesnt exist tipper gore was an illusion jack thompson was a false flag [editline]16th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;48689958]You are the victims of nothing, fighting against nothing using totally useless tactics like insulting the strawmen you've built. Take a step back from the keyboard, think about what you're doing for a bit and come back with some actual understanding of just what you think you're fighting, because it's not what you think it is.[/QUOTE] This is the main thing. Social Justice Warriors actually exist, but they have no power. This is just the same exact shit that's been happening for hundreds upon hundreds of years, and it happened to music, movies, books, comic books, and video games. They never held any real power and the only time they did (with the PMRC in the 80s,) it totally backfired and served to boost sales instead of actually censor seditious, unchristian ideas like it was intended to. Those idiots don't have power, they never had power, and they never will have power. It's kinda silly to get worked up over a bunch of nobodies doing nothing so I just ignore them at this point.

[QUOTE=Conscript;48695130]According to this book, I was right about appraising the left as a whole in history as 'SJWs' [url]http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-ebook/dp/B014GMBUR4[/url][/QUOTE] oh boy this is truly a convincing book The idea that tolerance and inclusiveness are [i]the opposite of observable reality[/i] is absurd. He's arguing that we should just let shit be how it is and never try to make changes in our society to bring about equality. Womens' Suffrage? Fuck it, that's not how reality works. If equality, tolerance, and inclusiveness are an "agenda," fuck it, I support it wholeheartedly. That quote is saying that those things [i]do not exist in our reality[/i], which is blatantly false. He conflates reality with society - these are things our society lacks in certain areas, absolutely, but not something that [i]cannot exist in reality[/i].

Whatever, I'd put my arm around my girlfriend to show affection. IF I HAD ONE.

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;48688351]Ughhh stop drawing attention to these people! These threads just play out the same way every time. Like these are just the shittiest threads in FP at this point. I'm not defending this chick, but people complaining about feminism or SJWs have really become as or even more annoying than the SJWs themselves. [editline]15th September 2015[/editline] epic posts, brothers![/QUOTE] It's impossible to be more annoying than the SJWs and überfeminists unless you're being ironic or a troll because at least when we criticize them we make sense

Why the fuck can't we all just laugh at this shit, not take it seriously and move the fuck on? Why do we have to talk about the loudest vocal minority that uses something good as a proper shield to hide their horrible shit past?

Monkeys throwing shit at the scarecrow they themselves erected.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;48695651]why am i even surprised this was presented by brietbartguy[/QUOTE] Fun fact: Vox Day is a white supremacist and generally shitty dude. Anybody to the politically left of him is a dirty SJW.

[QUOTE=Swilly;48696825]Why the fuck can't we all just laugh at this shit, not take it seriously and move the fuck on? Why do we have to talk about the loudest vocal minority that uses something good as a proper shield to hide their horrible shit past?[/QUOTE] Because people on this forum keep getting offended when we make fun of THIS group of ideological radicals as opposed to every other group of ideological radicals that get made fun of here on a regular basis. People get offended, post about how they're offended and other people reply to their posts about how they're offended (and get offended over the other people being offended), and it causes the threads to keep getting bumped up to the top. People see a lot of replies to these threads in particular and they come in to see what's going on and the cycle continues. Tl;dr: if people didn't keep coming in to these thread to tell people to stop replying to these threads, no one would reply to these threads.

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;48693350]It's kinda strange, I don't even do it to my gf as a sign of ownership, I just do it to bring her closer 2 me (da cuddles). But that's just me [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Harry3;48694033]lol what touching and wanting to be close to your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband is now an [I]issue[/I]??[/QUOTE] Not talking about love cuddles. Talking about like when you're having a nice conversation with someone at the bar, and her boyfriend comes along and puts her arm around her as a "She's taken already" sign, even though it's the first thing she said and you weren't trying to pick her up, or like when some dude's girlfriend makes it a point to show affection while her boyfriend is in the middle of a conversation with another woman to "mark her territory". There ARE situations where people show PDA as an attempt to "mark their territory", and that's what I'm talking about, because it's the only context in which her argument makes sense.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48697279]Because people on this forum keep getting offended when we make fun of THIS group of ideological radicals as opposed to every other group of ideological radicals that get made fun of here on a regular basis. People get offended, post about how they're offended and other people reply to their posts about how they're offended (and get offended over the other people being offended), and it causes the threads to keep getting bumped up to the top. People see a lot of replies to these threads in particular and they come in to see what's going on and the cycle continues. Tl;dr: if people didn't keep coming in to these thread to tell people to stop replying to these threads, no one would reply to these threads.[/QUOTE] Like, I don't understand why we're not laughing. Why should we get mad, getting mad means we've proved them 'right' somehow. We should just laugh, make a joke at the expense of the idea and person and then move on.

[QUOTE=axelord157;48692035]Trust me, MLK would have been called an SJW if he existed during the era of the internet,[/QUOTE]Actually he'd likely get harassed by SJWs because they're terrible people. You, along with HexpunK and others, are trying to make it seem like SJWs don't actually exist and the word is just a real mean nasty thing stop it you guys!!! See, my favorite thing about these threads is whenever I post that yeah, these people exist [i]in real life[/i] and I show examples of them people like you don't touch it with a ten foot pole. Your entire argument is "nah just dont worry about it they dont really exist they dont count" while silently nodding in approval when they manage to vomit out something that isn't radically insane and you actually notice it. I've posted examples of radfems and nobody said a fucking thing in response because I was 100% spot-on, and it's people like you who don't want to admit the uncomfortable truth: SJWs are a real, dangerous phenomena. Just recently there was some shithead saying that "oh if it's 20% likely that a man raped somebody kick him out of university" and people [i]cheered[/i] for him, those people are the shitheads we're talking about! You're trying to paint it as "oh sjw is just a catch-all mean word for progressives :( :( :(" when it's not, you know [i]exactly[/i] who we're talking about. You gloss over all the completely ridiculous shit these dumb motherfuckers say because [i]technically[/i] they're in the same social camp as you, so naturally it would be difficult for you to acknowledge them. I'm going to guess that you're just like every everyone else out there, and deep down you know if you criticize them you'll potentially have to look at yourself. Maybe that's too much scrutiny for you to handle right now, I don't know, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. At the end of the day these types are a blight on society and when people point out the stupid, stupid shit they do and rightfully get angry about it just let them be. I don't know why you're here going "no you guys they don't really exist stop saying that!" but I'm getting real tired of the SJW squad showing up in threads to point out how there isn't any SJWs in the world. Eventually I get annoyed and this primitive urge to prove people wrong takes over, I make a post that everyone's afraid to touch, and then I wake up in a field the next day, naked, next to a dead whore. [editline]16th September 2015[/editline] I think we should all focus on the real tragedy here: there are children using the internet who don't know who Helen fucking Mirren is. :l

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48699828]Actually he'd likely get harassed by SJWs because they're terrible people. You, along with HexpunK and others, are trying to make it seem like SJWs don't actually exist and the word is just a real mean nasty thing stop it you guys!!! See, my favorite thing about these threads is whenever I post that yeah, these people exist [i]in real life[/i] and I show examples of them people like you don't touch it with a ten foot pole. Your entire argument is "nah just dont worry about it they dont really exist they dont count" while silently nodding in approval when they manage to vomit out something that isn't radically insane and you actually notice it. I've posted examples of radfems and nobody said a fucking thing in response because I was 100% spot-on, and it's people like you who don't want to admit the uncomfortable truth: SJWs are a real, dangerous phenomena. Just recently there was some shithead saying that "oh if it's 20% likely that a man raped somebody kick him out of university" and people [i]cheered[/i] for him, those people are the shitheads we're talking about! You're trying to paint it as "oh sjw is just a catch-all mean word for progressives :( :( :(" when it's not, you know [i]exactly[/i] who we're talking about. You gloss over all the completely ridiculous shit these dumb motherfuckers say because [i]technically[/i] they're in the same social camp as you, so naturally it would be difficult for you to acknowledge them. I'm going to guess that you're just like every everyone else out there, and deep down you know if you criticize them you'll potentially have to look at yourself. Maybe that's too much scrutiny for you to handle right now, I don't know, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. At the end of the day these types are a blight on society and when people point out the stupid, stupid shit they do and rightfully get angry about it just let them be. I don't know why you're here going "no you guys they don't really exist stop saying that!" but I'm getting real tired of the SJW squad showing up in threads to point out how there isn't any SJWs in the world. Eventually I get annoyed and this primitive urge to prove people wrong takes over, I make a post that everyone's afraid to touch, and then I wake up in a field the next day, naked, next to a dead whore. [editline]16th September 2015[/editline] I think we should all focus on the real tragedy here: there are children using the internet who don't know who Helen fucking Mirren is. :l[/QUOTE] I feel like these threads are turning into a broken record. If people are saying that historical figures would of been classified as "SJWs" during their time period how exactly is that saying that "SJWs" do not exist? It is a blatant admission of their reality through the means of categorizing historical figures into the moniker. Speaking for myself, I'm tired of doing damage control for people anymore so I just try to pull the good things out of what they say, instead of try to be like "Oh no most people do not think like that." For example, in this article, I would agree that men who forcefully lean on their partner and hold her close to the point that she is basically being lead by him is wrong without proper consent from the women. You point out that the term "SJW" is not being used as a derogatory term for progressive people but rather for "a real, dangerous phenomena" of "shitheads" but there are multiple posts of many people being accused of being "SJWs" even on this forum just for holding a viewpoint on gender theory or whatever that does not align with the rest of the forums views, I know I have been called an "SJW" before in the past and, you may hold differing opinions, I do not think I'm a dangerous menace to society and a "shithead." Finally, kind of went in a weird order sorry but I read all over the place in paragraphs and then piece it all together in the end, MLK and others would definitely be labeled "SJWs" if that was a term back then. If you deconstruct the term, it stands for "Social Justice Warrior." Now many would just say that the term is used for anyone with extremist "progressive" views that just harm society in the long run. Back in the 60's when MLK was most vocal, his viewpoints were definitely challenging societal norms and seen to many as extremist "progressive" views that would harm society in the long run. Just because someone is a "warrior for social justice" does not mean you have to instantly hate them. The example I brought up of Susan B. Anthony earlier is a prime example. She was a total radical feminist for her time, read up a bit on her, but I, hopefully, would not see you claiming she is a "shithead" who is a "real, dangerous phenomena." Same goes for all people who challenged social norms of the past that we now think are outdated or barbaric. At the time, those old viewpoints were the majority, and fringe people would attempt to change them through activism. Its literally the same thing. Maybe people like MLK or Frederick Douglass did not have a tumblr or whatever, but that does not mean that they did not go up against a long standing societal "norm" and got a lot of flack for it in the process. If facepunch was around in the time of the first wave feminist movement, or the abolitionist movement, or the civil rights movement, I would bet that most of the users at the time would be saying the same shit about all these historical figures society harolds as just and right people. [editline]16th September 2015[/editline] Like posters like these prove my point about the "SJWs of their respective time" thing. (All posters about anti-first wave feminism and anti-women's suffrage.) [t]http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/suffragette1.jpg[/t] [IMG]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbcdm316vs1qa49tx.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/suffragette3use.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/suffragette8.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/suffragette9.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbcdt7SsJX1qa49tx.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://lowres-picturecabinet.com.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/29/main/7/177688.jpg[/IMG] (The list goes on and on.) Now tell me how this is not the same thing as calling someone an "SJW?" [editline]16th September 2015[/editline] Here is a good one for people who say that "Today's SJWs are different because they don't want equality, they want women dominance!" [IMG]https://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcvkch6hlM1rk5df6o2_1280.jpg[/IMG] [editline]16th September 2015[/editline] Finally (this post is becoming a Frankenstein) the whole point to the third wave feminist movement is to be heard and to make boys mad. Like from its origins in music, the whole point was for "grrls" to take center stage and tell boys that they have their time to do their thing and now girls want there time too. Getting upset and raving about "SJWs" and stuff is kind of what people want because it means their voices are heard.

no one is saying helen mirren is stupid because she's "going up against social norms", they're saying she's stupid because she said something fucking stupid The difference between saying women should be able to vote and saying that men shouldn't put their arms around their girlfriends is that one of those statements is fucking stupid and the other one isn't But by all means, please continue to diminish the long and bloody struggle for equality by comparing it to someone complaining about how other people express affection in public.

Sure is a lot of arguments going on. Can we all at least agree holding an arm around your girlfriend is not sexist? I mean, my ex girlfriend used to randomly put her arm around me at times. I've been with a SJW, she had no issue with it either. Unfortunately people make stupid remarks like this one. Some third waver once said ALL sex, even consensual, was rape. Just people making very stupid remarks about mundane things and trying to sound intelligent or something.

I never understood why people insist on barging into others relationships and telling them how they should be getting along with each other Fuck off and mind your own business