Until human males have hundreds of thousands of years of mental hard wiring to be distracted by fat people and programed to have specific brain chemistry triggered at the sight of fat people...

hahaha saw this article before. I should probably participate in the discussion but all I have to say is "Way to be that chick"

Apparently none of you have tried to drive a public bus with an erection before.

She made the choice to dress like that and understood well that she would attract attention. Again, her problem. And yes, I do agree the bus driver should have spoken to her in private.

About my first post: it doesn't exactly work in reverse. The woman initiated the problem. And The bus driver had no influence in the woman's decision to dress as such. Why should I have to face the consequences of someone else's decision to be a distraction? The woman is forcing the bus driver to make a decision that he should not have had to deal with.

It's really the same deal as second hand smoke. I shouldnt have to inhale smoke because someone else wanted to light up nor should I have to move to another location. If they want to smoke, they should move to a designated smoking area. I have a right to be in a smoke free area.

That's just a load of crap.

Again:



Oh well, time to read other threads.

No FGR, it's about protecting people's rights without violating others rights. I think people here are just taking the woman's side simply because she's a woman. If it was a man dressed in a gimp costume, everyone would side with the bus driver.

The point is, the woman chose to dress like that and become a distraction. However, the bus driver has a right to be in a distraction-free workplace. In an equivalent situation, replace the woman with two noisy kids jumping up and down. Whose side are you on now?

I love how most people have a brain that is incapable of operating outside of "left" and "right". My view on this issue takes a libertarian standpoint. In fact, just to refute FGR's post, this view is much more liberal than conservative. A conservative standpoint is about social control -- this would be simply saying "hey! it's illegal to dress like that. You can't be in public like that." My standpoint, a libertarian one, says "you have the right to do this as long as you don't violate someone else's right."

Why don't you guys all just become Muslims?

...you know, men who cover their women with clothes from head to toe, because they have a problem with their libido?

You would be surprised.

Fat people distract the **** out of me.

They're always puffing and wheezing. :/

This post is directed at IRG SithLord's last two posts.

The only persons rights infringed on were hers. She was humilated in front of a group of people because the bus driver was so fixated on her cleavage it was somehow interefering with his abilities to operate large machinery. Anybody in anyway can be a distraction, this doesn't mean everyone should dress in all-covering neutral uniforms to prevent it. She wanted to look hot, and I can not understand how that infringes on anyones rights.
It's every individuals responsibility to control their own urges, such as screaming obscenities to the jerk that cut you off in traffic. You're essentially supporting the shifting his responsibilies onto her. And I'm pretty sure I said this before, but if he can't control his focus he shouldn't be driving a bus. The consequences of this situation stem from the driver, not her.

This situation isn't compartive to second hand smoke. Cigarette smoke is deadly and it really goes without saying that it's everyones right to not be dead. I don't know how to word this proper, but inhaling second hand smoke infringes on that right. The corrolation between Person A, the smoker, and Person B is obvious. Person A is doing something that's causing unwanted harm on Person B. In the situation under discussion, the girl is looking hot, which doesn't, of its own, draw the attention of the driver. It's the drivers inability to control his focus that causes his attention to stay with her when he sees her, which is where the problem arises.

Bottom line is that the consequences of this are on the driver. You can't remove anything thats going to be a 'distraction' to someone, or some kind of trigger. (Which in this case would be uncontrolable gawking.)
If we did that, all women and men would have to wear all-covering neutral clothing, as it could trigger sexual arousal. All films, books and video games would have to be censored, perhaps banned completely, so not to trigger sexual arousal, violence, laughter, happiness, etc, etc...

I dress like that all the time and it's never happened to me.

She isn't even that good looking. I think I'd need to see the cleavage in question to make the call.

This isn't right. He's a bus driver, and his job requires him to ignore distractions on a regular basis. How long do you think a bus driver would keep his job if he asserted his supposed right to a distraction-free workplace to the utmost, and kicked out any passenger whose voice he could hear over the sound of the bus's engine, or insisted on moving people wearing bright colors to seats where he couldn't see them in the rearview mirror? He'd be fired because he's not capable of putting up with the demands of the job. He didn't do anything wrong by asking the woman to move, but the fact that he had to do so indicates that he's bad at what he does and should be fired so he doesn't have to embarrass any more women in this way.

Thousands of women in sexy clothes ride hundreds of buses all over the world every day of the summer, and I'd assume that they often find themselves in the driver's line of sight. For most drivers, this doesn't seem to be a problem.

Again, that post is stupid. It's doesn't matter what he should be able to do it matters that he can't drive the bus safely. If he was physically incapable of safely driving the bus, you can whine about rights and humiliation all day; in the end he had a responsibility to do the safe thing. Obviously, if he has that much trouble concentration, he should stop being a bus driver, but he couldn't really do that half way through the rout.

This post wins the thread.

There is no such thing as a right to not be humiliated.

I think a lot of us are approaching this on a societal level. I'm thinking about it in terms of a situational cost-benefit analysis going on in the driver's head:

Situation:

Like it or not, I am distracted by the woman.

Possible Responses -> Outcomes:

- Ask woman to move -> She gets embarrassed and maybe I get bad press/lose my job

- Try to keep driving -> Potentially crash and endanger the lives of multiple persons.

If the driver's sensibilities were such that he would be sufficiently distracted to impair his ability to operate the bus, he probably isn't fit to drive the bus; however, it's not like he could just simply stop the bus and say, "I can't do this anymore, I'm a danger to myself and others!" and storm off... the bad press he'd get then might be even worse.

I think he did the right thing in the situation but should not return to bus driving.

But let's not forget that no one frickin' has time to do a "situational cost-benefit analysis" at the time of the event. The guy just went with his gut...

There is an ant on the windshield that is distracting you from driving. Do you a.) pour three gallons of HCL on it or b.) wipe it away with the wipers and have it done with.

You can handle the same problem in different ways to get the same end result. One just happens to make more sense. He could have told her quietly about the problem, not shouting it in front of everyone.

If a female bus driver asked me to move because she thought I'm a distraction for being too hot (and this is hypothetical because this would never happen in my case) I'd get a big ego boost and reposition myself. I'm not saying that applies to this woman's story in any way, though.

Yes, there is. The first paragraph of the German constitution states that "Human dignity is inviolable."

On topic: The driver did the right thing in removing the distraction, thus keeping his passengers safe.
But the woman can also dress any way she wants and could never have had any reason to believe that her way of dressing would endager anyones life.

Even if she was old and ugly and had a creepy glint in her eyes whenever she looked at you?

I've gotta start taking the bus to work.

Do we know for sure? If it's the latter, then I have no sympathy, and the guy probably just shouts out whatever's on his mind whenever anything is. The thought process I encapsulated in "situational cost-benefit analysis" can take split seconds. He probably didn't say anything at first (otherwise, he would have kicked her off the bus as soon as she got on), but as it became apparent to him that he was being distracted, he finally decided to say something.

EXACTLY.

That's why this woman should STFU and GBTW

Yeah I have its not hard its kind of hard turning the steering wheel with the erection but my penis is big enough

The photographer in this case was not so distracted by the woman's cleavage that he/she was unable to reliably frame the camera shot on the subject's face and upheld bus pass. Cleary, this photographer should have a new career as a bus driver!

Or, perhaps we don't know the whole story here. It could be that the photographer asked her to move to a more suitable position for the photograph or else be removed from the shot. After all, we should be able to operate the internet without being distracted by cleavage... safety first!

You are all missing the point here! Everyone is completely forgetting the fact that the first thing they tell bus drivers in training is "if you ever get nervous, just imagine the passengers are dressed in only their underwear."

The failure is on the part of the training program. The bus driver was conditioned to respond as he did. Here's how it works:

1. Nervous newbie drivers are instructed to imagine that their passengers are dressed only in their underwear. Optionally, they are rewarded with a doggie treat to reinforce this coping mechanism.

2. During actual bus driving duty, the experienced driver performs normally until stimulated by the sight of a passanger who appears to be dressed "only in their underwear." Due to the fact that "only in their underwear" had such a strong association stress, the driver once again experiences stress as if they were in training.

Solution:
In training, prospective drivers should be told that if they feel nervous, they should imagine that all the passengers are funny looking dwarves. Bus seats then can simply be re-designed in such a way that dwarves will always be too short to be seen in the rear view mirrors. Alternately, there could be a special section at the rear of the bus assigned only to dwarves...and so that they will not feel this discrimination is unfair, the special section of the bus should be stocked with fresh specialty blends of coffee.

Of course, this step could be skipped by creating a section of the bus for "sexy" people...but then you run into complications with people not knowing whether they are "sexy." Some people would be simply unaware of their own sexiness. Others would imagine themselves to be sexy despite the fact that the majority of onlookers would not precieve them this way. Dwarve is insanely simple to define and recognize..."sexy" is not.

Weary of the difficulties involved in legislating "unsafe sexiness," policy makers have unfairly placed the burden on inadequately trained bus drivers. The severity of this problem will only increase with Global Warming. So why are we bickering? Do your part and stop buying incadescent lightbulbs.

Wow... Siblimke's post wins the PsyGris "Best Post of the Year" award.

thank god (or whoever, it doesn't really matter)

where in the hell did this bull**** sense of entitlement come from? nowhere does it say everyone has the right to do whatever the hell they want and never be bothered. not even if they are only doing legal things!

people need do have some personal responsibility. yes the bus driver was a bit of an ***hole in his execution, but he dealt with the situation correctly. granted if he cant handle a little cleavage he is probably in the wrong profession.

but seriously... 'oh mr. government! ive been offended! wont you please write some legislation to protect me because i am too feeble/lazy to fend for myself :saddowns:'

^thats basically what this sounds like.

if the guy cant handle breasts he should work in a monastery.

if she cant handle attention, don't wear revealing clothes.

quick question: what's GBTW?

get back to work? maybe? donno...

oooh that would make sense

It means "God bless the wookie"

If you got it, flaunt it.

Also, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

So shouldn't she have the dignity to not flash large portions of her tatas?

WTF...Simblimke comes out of the woodwork and writes a crazy-*** essay?

Also, well done moneypie.

Which is why Germany is the bastion of free speech in today's world.

Or not.

I concur. I hear obnoxious indignant people going on all day about their "right" to this and that. It's so retarded. Where do they come up with this stuff? It's not like it's in the constitution. When you boil all the fat out of it, 99 times out of a hundred it ends up being something like "Everyone must respect my right to be obnoxious and put up with me because I said the word 'right."



It must be sad to live in a country where your Constitution has spelling errors in it. Also, how the heck to you make getting embarrassed illegal? I would definitely re-write that thing ASAP.

Uh, there aren't any spelling mistakes in that quote.