Fintan O’Toole jumping on the bandwagon to score points against Irish men and boys.

silverharp

leggo wrote: »

Excessive, unwanted and persistent attention given no affirmative consent. That's like the tenth time I've had to explain that to someone on boards. It's not complicated

I don't think its a fair term to use because it can be weaponised, are we talking stalking over months? is it time based on a single encounter , under 5 minutes ok, 5.01 creepy?

leggo wrote: »

This is the problem with these debates. There are people, on both sides, who can't discuss a gender issue without saying "WELL (my gender) HAS (this problem)!" Like it's a childish competition. Women can have an issue without it undercutting any men's issue. Why is it only with gender we approach topics like this?

it gives it some context otherwise this issue will just be seen as something men do to women. Ive just introduced alcohol into the mix where people's normal programming can get shut down, in such a case no amount of education is going to stop excessive alcohol turning an otherwise pleasant person into a "creep"

leggo wrote: »

The truth is that it comes back to my original post on here that people just want to shout something down because they're comfortable in the world they're living in.

not really, its about ensuring that boys are protected in this and are not just cattle prodded to comply with some feminist maniacs. My skin in the game here is having a boy who has just become a teenager, I hope I can set him straight on a few things but it will be based on him seeing a clearer path that is in his interests.

leggo wrote: »

I've had unwanted attention myself. But, like yourself, I can't really say that it affected me much more than being "awkward" for a while. And that's kinda damning of your own argument, in which presumably you're trying to put your best foot forward and not undermine: that "awkward" is the worst thing you can come up with to describe your inconvenience. For women, it's different because often there'll be added elements of physical intimidation, an uneven power dynamic or even societal expectations. I read a harrowing account of a sexual assault on a friend last night where she described how she was guilt-tripped into keeping her mouth shut for fear of ruining her drunken male friend's life is she spoke up, and from then until recently felt like a "bitch" if she ever denied a guy she was seeing sex. These are the corners society has pushed women into and, if you're oblivious to them, you either haven't lived enough or spoken to enough people to be qualified enough to be taken seriously or you're a part of said problem.

but you are entering areas of safety and law breaking. Everyone knows the law, if they choose to break it that's on them, its not an education issue apart from more general issues like binge drinking , staying safe etc.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A boxer punches someone in a match with a consenting opponent who wants to be there, it’s fine, even good. Same guy does the same thing with someone who doesn’t want to be in a fight and it’s a major problem. The victim could learn self defence and that would be good, but the blame is with the transgressor, not the victim.

The same is true in relationships. A woman likes to brush a guy off and likes to be pursued and the guy pursued her and they get together. The same guy pursues a woman who doesn’t like it and it’s stalking. Quite right.

The boxing analogy is a bit binary here, stalking I'd describe as behaviour going on over weeks and months where the individual doesn't take the hint. So lets assume you spot a mate in this situation, do you tell him the girl doesn't like it and he should stop? or tell him to stop putting women or this women on a pedestal, it is wasting his time and not good for his mental health, "forget about her, plenty of fish in the sea yada yada!". The second approach would be better in my view because it would also cater to a situation where the woman might be getting a kick out of stringing him along perhaps. its a win win if the fellow learns a better strategy for himself as opposed to only having negative rules to follow.

LLMMLL

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It comes down to if you fancy them its wanted attention and if you don't fancy them its unwanted attention. if its unwanted isn't it better to learn some assertive skills to deal with the unwanted?/quote]

Whether or not it’s a problem can be down to whether it’s wanted or unwanted. The context is important as in all walks of life.

A boxer punches someone in a match with a consenting opponent who wants to be there, it’s fine, even good. Same guy does the same thing with someone who doesn’t want to be in a fight and it’s a major problem. The victim could learn self defence and that would be good, but the blame is with the transgressor, not the victim.

The same is true in relationships. A woman likes to brush a guy off and likes to be pursued and the guy pursued her and they get together. The same guy pursues a woman who doesn’t like it and it’s stalking. Quite right.

I wouldn't say women or some subgroup of women "like" being pursued. In the cases I've seen where pursuit worked usually the guy says something charming that breaks through the initial annoyance or the woman semi gets to know the guy through his pursuit and ends up finding it funny. It's not like any randomers can get rebuffed and then pursuit will guarantee him to eventually be successful. Most cases of persistent pursuit will be unsuccessful and basically harrassment. Just because the odd guy makes it work in certain circumstances doesn't make it a good thing.

silverharp

LLMMLL wrote: »

I wouldn't say women or some subgroup of women "like" being pursued. In the cases I've seen where pursuit worked usually the guy says something charming that breaks through the initial annoyance or the woman semi gets to know the guy through his pursuit and ends up finding it funny. It's not like any randomers can get rebuffed and then pursuit will guarantee him to eventually be successful. Most cases of persistent pursuit will be unsuccessful and basically harrassment. Just because the odd guy makes it work in certain circumstances doesn't make it a good thing.

is that a case of not picking up dating advice from Hollywood romcoms ?

leggo

silverharp wrote: »

I don't think its a fair term to use because it can be weaponised, are we talking stalking over months? is it time based on a single encounter , under 5 minutes ok, 5.01 creepy?

The word "Yes" is your friend here. This mindset is all wrong: your default to begin with is to put unwanted attention upon someone and then there is a 'cut-off' where it begins to become inappropriate. No, it's inappropriate from the get-go to force your attention on someone who hasn't expressly agreed to receive it. That's the misunderstanding and miseducation that led us here, the fact that it hasn't occurred to you here that you can just ask for consent at every stage (e.g. "Hello is it okay if I talk to you for a minute?") is illuminating. Instead you're assuming consent from the get-go and working backwards towards some vague, imaginary line when there's a very clear barrier in place via the woman having the opportunity to agree to all stages of an interaction.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to demonise you here. This is the gap in education I'm talking about. It's like a guy I know who made jokes about advertising informing men to ask for consent before they have sex with someone. He was shocked when the rest of the room turned around and said, "Yeah you absolutely have to do that," assuming that consent was implied by talking back to him, or coming back to his place. I know this lad and he's a decent skin, I don't think for a second he's ever committed any great wrong against a woman, but even he was oblivious to the fact that yes, people do actually ask for consent and it's not something you assume and just blast through in reality.

not really, its about ensuring that boys are protected in this and are not just cattle prodded to comply with some feminist maniacs. My skin in the game here is having a boy who has just become a teenager, I hope I can set him straight on a few things but it will be based on him seeing a clearer path that is in his interests.

What is it exactly you're trying to protect your son from, though? These 'maniacs', in this context, are merely trying to educate men that "Yes means yes" in all aspects of sexuality. Do you not agree that that should be the case? That's what you're fighting here if you disagree with this.

but you are entering areas of safety and law breaking. Everyone knows the law, if they choose to break it that's on them, its not an education issue apart from more general issues like binge drinking , staying safe etc.

Except for the part that, as illustrated above, you don't seem to understand the issues yourself. And, don't get me wrong, I have no doubt you're a decent, law-abiding person who isn't guilty of any of this kind of behaviour. Yet you find yourself oblivious to the issues and perhaps unknowingly arguing against a very reasonable campaign that simply allows women to take the power back over their own bodies. That's all this is.

tritium

leggo wrote: »

There is no point to refute. The 'women go for bad boys' trope is a myth based off movies. It's a common misconception usually touted by guys who aren't getting any attention from women looking to deflect blame. I know plenty of men and women who end up in toxic situations because of various psychological factors, but I don't know women who go out looking for men like "He's such an arsehole, I love him!"

There is absolutely a point to refute. And frankly its horse**** to look to blame the movies for that concept. Tommy lee and pamela anderson, charlie sheen back in the day. All just the movies right? Do i need to do you a long list? The bad boy/ femme fatale ideas have existed for longer than the movies and they are most definitely not just down to the men. The rake concept dates back to the court of Charles ii, only falling from grace later in history. Indeed it could even be argued it sttetches back to antiquity with Zeus and Athenas various antics. Frankly its lazy stereotyping on your part to simply brush it off as a movie myth and blame disaffected males. Believe it or not movies are a window on culture not just the source of.

Of course its easier for you to modify the point so it becomes different. Of course no one goes looking for an arsehole. But if you have certain personality traits as socially desireable thats often what you get. Thats across gender by the way.

silverharp

leggo wrote: »

The word "Yes" is your friend here. This mindset is all wrong: your default to begin with is to put unwanted attention upon someone and then there is a 'cut-off' where it begins to become inappropriate. No, it's inappropriate from the get-go to force your attention on someone who hasn't expressly agreed to receive it. That's the misunderstanding and miseducation that led us here, the fact that it hasn't occurred to you here that you can just ask for consent at every stage (e.g. "Hello is it okay if I talk to you for a minute?") is illuminating. Instead you're assuming consent from the get-go and working backwards towards some vague, imaginary line when there's a very clear barrier in place via the woman having the opportunity to agree to all stages of an interaction.

"Hello is it okay if I talk to you for a minute?" this is borderline autistic , there are a million reasons and situations why one person might strike up a conversation with another, people are spontaneous and its not how the world works. if someone said that to me, i'd be here we go they are going to talk to me about Jesus

leggo wrote: »

What is it exactly you're trying to protect your son from, though? These 'maniacs', in this context, are merely trying to educate men that "Yes means yes" in all aspects of sexuality. Do you not agree that that should be the case? That's what you're fighting here if you disagree with this.

again there are so many unknowns here, like above people like to talk and its spontaneous. i'd be the first to say that if you get a bunch of monosyllable responses even if its just someone trying to shoot the breeze , take the hint. and you certainly cant lump chatting to someone at a bus stop with sex

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Good message but awfully organised given it was intended ro be preemptive but ignored half of all potential victims and half of all potential abusers. Given the stage if behavioural awareness they focuses on a gender specific campaign isnt defensible

Ok so are you talking about this type of message but addressed to both genders?

tritium wrote: »

Because younger people become older people who often look back and wish they understood at the time why they made some bad choices. Because prevention is better than cure. Because what we perceive as desirable comes from a time before we have experience.

I was asking about how you address the specific claims made a few posts ago. Women encourage the bad boy by being attracted to them. How do you create an education campaign for that? Telling girls not to encourage or to stay away from bad boys is not likely to work out well in my opinion.

Domestic violence is a better example. I think you could create a campaign to encourage abuse victims to come forward and put social pressure on domestic abusers of either gender.

tritium wrote: »

We have perpetrators! We fill prisons with them! By all means educate them that they've done wrong (hell do that for all crime)

I think you missed my point there. The posters in these threads object to preemptive education campaigns that they see as presuming men are all potential abusers. Sexual assault on campus was one the got posters exorcised. Street harassment was a more recent one and the forum regulars were highly critical of it because, lots of them felt, it made all men out to be perpetrators and all women victims.

How would a preemptive education campaign avoid doing that?

How would you square a campaign with the posters who feel men are already under attack?

tritium wrote: »

By dealing with perpetrators as perpatrators and with the rest (men and women) as a part of a wider society. By not judging one group of innocent people or making them their brothers keeper

Ok so perpetrators would be dealt with separately from the rest of the population. Unless you’re a perpetrator you probably won’t experience the campaign designed for perpetrators. What would the campaign for normal people look like?

How would a campaign like you’re outlining above avoid making James Dean/James Bond types persona non grata? In other words, telling men they’re flawed by design.

Your word not mine (and a pretty crappy backhand attempt to spin tbh) . theres positives and negatives in all of those and indeed other social ideals. They exist for a reason but may need an update over time. If anything male ideals have been more transient while maintaining a character narriative due to the level of attention they get - jason bourne anyone?
[/quote]

No, not my word at all. One poster uses ‘toxic masculinity’ as an inherent fault like ‘original sin’. That’s an opinion I see expressed in these threads and I’m asking how you would design a campaign to educate about bad boys and bad boy behaviour, without creating a negative view of bad boy types who haven’t actually done anything wrong ?

tritium wrote: »

I dont really believe you. Now, i asked for your answers to the question i believe....

Ok believe what you want.

I’m playing devils advocate because I don’t think there can or should be any kind of campaign to warn people off bad boys. I can’t think of any preemptive campaigns that have been supported in these threads. Maybe you can think of some. They generally receive criticism because they supposedly treat all men as rapists by default.

I thought the domestic violence campaign was very good. If it also included men as victims women as perpetrators, it would have been better.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

The boxing analogy is a bit binary here, stalking I'd describe as behaviour going on over weeks and months where the individual doesn't take the hint. So lets assume you spot a mate in this situation, do you tell him the girl doesn't like it and he should stop? or tell him to stop putting women or this women on a pedestal, it is wasting his time and not good for his mental health, "forget about her, plenty of fish in the sea yada yada!". The second approach would be better in my view because it would also cater to a situation where the woman might be getting a kick out of stringing him along perhaps. its a win win if the fellow learns a better strategy for himself as opposed to only having negative rules to follow.

Ok but this was to do with your point about some women liking to be pursued and women encourage men pursuing them, And it depends on whether the attention is wanted or not. So women should shoulder some responsibility for male persistence.

You say you could pull your mate aside and speak to him. So I’ll ask you how would you tell the difference between a man who’s wooing a woman who wants to be pursued and, a mate who’s stalking a woman?

I’ve got to think it wouldn’t be that difficult to tell the difference, so how does it worry as a mitigating factor at all?

El_Duderino 09

LLMMLL wrote: »

I wouldn't say women or some subgroup of women "like" being pursued. In the cases I've seen where pursuit worked usually the guy says something charming that breaks through the initial annoyance or the woman semi gets to know the guy through his pursuit and ends up finding it funny. It's not like any randomers can get rebuffed and then pursuit will guarantee him to eventually be successful. Most cases of persistent pursuit will be unsuccessful and basically harrassment. Just because the odd guy makes it work in certain circumstances doesn't make it a good thing.

I was following a point made my another poster. Their point was that some women like bad boys, like being pursued and the nice guys don’t get the girl. there were also references to movies where the persistent guy gets the girl etc. It’s not necessarily my opinion. I was assuming their argument to explore it, not because I like it.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok but this was to do with your point about some women liking to be pursued and women encourage men pursuing them, And it depends on whether the attention is wanted or not. So women should shoulder some responsibility for male persistence.

I wouldn't use the word responsibility but as persistence itself is not objectively a bad thing its up to both parties to read it as best as they can depending on the situation.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You say you could pull your mate aside and speak to him. So I’ll ask you how would you tell the difference between a man who’s wooing a woman who wants to be pursued and, a mate who’s stalking a woman?

I’ve got to think it wouldn’t be that difficult to tell the difference, so how does it worry as a mitigating factor at all?

The unknown here is "wants to be wooed"? and how reasonable he is being. if some guy keeps chasing unobtainable women then he needs to be put straight for everyone's good, if another guy can turn any encounter 8 out 10 times into a date eventually then good luck to him assuming he isn't unreasonably behaving with the 2 out of 10 he strikes out with.

optogirl

silverharp wrote: »

"you certainly cant lump chatting to someone at a bus stop with sex

Who is doing this? Nobody. There's an awful lot of whining about what you're 'not allowed' to do anymore - most of which is either a) wrong or b) fair enough - yes, you are not allowed to invade someones space or put your hands on them when it's uninvited. Boo hoo.

silverharp

optogirl wrote: »

Who is doing this? Nobody. There's an awful lot of whining about what you're 'not allowed' to do anymore - most of which is either a) wrong or b) fair enough - yes, you are not allowed to invade someones space or put your hands on them when it's uninvited. Boo hoo.

well leggo appears to want full positive consent for every male female interaction. Ill take it as given that most women would not sign up to this.

where did invading space and getting handsy come from, no one so far suggested that this?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

I wouldn't use the word responsibility but as persistence itself is not objectively a bad thing its up to both parties to read it as best as they can depending on the situation.

I’m not sure why you’re not using the word responsibility. But ok.

When the pursuer reads the situation wrongly is the pinch point.

Surely pursuing anyone at any time is a relatively risky behaviour. You know that pursuing someone is more likely to lead to trouble if you’ve read the situation wrongly.

The ultimate question is this; if you’re accused of hassling someone, is it a mitigating circumstance to say that some women like to play hard to get?

silverharp wrote: »

The unknown here is "wants to be wooed"? and how reasonable he is being. if some guy keeps chasing unobtainable women then he needs to be put straight for everyone's good, if another guy can turn any encounter 8 out 10 times into a date eventually then good luck to him assuming he isn't unreasonably behaving with the 2 out of 10 he strikes out with.

So in the case of the ‘guy keeps chasing unobtainable women’, or even the guy who is chasing a woman who isn’t interested and he hasn’t done this type of thing with anyone else. Is it a mitigating circumstance to say that some women like to be pursued/play hard to get?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m not sure why you’re not using the word responsibility. But ok.

When the pursuer reads the situation wrongly is the pinch point.

Surely pursuing anyone at any time is a relatively risky behaviour. You know that pursuing someone is more likely to lead to trouble if you’ve read the situation wrongly.

The ultimate question is this; if you’re accused of hassling someone, is it a mitigating circumstance to say that some women like to play hard to get?

I don't know if he has read the situation wrongly, he just failed to change the mind of the pursuee . Why should it lead to trouble? There are clearly situations where prudence is called for like work or for whatever reason having someone at a disadvantage for example employee customer, or landlord tenant

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So in the case of the ‘guy keeps chasing unobtainable women’, or even the guy who is chasing a woman who isn’t interested and he hasn’t done this type of thing with anyone else. Is it a mitigating circumstance to say that some women like to be pursued/play hard to get?

I don't think it matters, all things being equal there is nothing objectively wrong with attempting to change the other person's mind so whether they were playing hard to get is irrelevant.

leggo

tritium wrote: »

There is absolutely a point to refute. And frankly its horse**** to look to blame the movies for that concept. Tommy lee and pamela anderson, charlie sheen back in the day. All just the movies right? Do i need to do you a long list? The bad boy/ femme fatale ideas have existed for longer than the movies and they are most definitely not just down to the men. The rake concept dates back to the court of Charles ii, only falling from grace later in history. Indeed it could even be argued it sttetches back to antiquity with Zeus and Athenas various antics. Frankly its lazy stereotyping on your part to simply brush it off as a movie myth and blame disaffected males. Believe it or not movies are a window on culture not just the source of.

The trope gets rolled out by 'nice guys', as if 'niceness' (which is just an empty word that practically, in this sense, is translated into passivity and false niceness because of a desperate need to be liked by others) is the attractive ideal. It's not. Niceness has about as much to do with attractiveness as it does with football skill. Confidence and self-awareness is attractive and people don't necessarily scan someone's moral compass when initially attracted to them, so bitter onlookers can often perceive 'arseholes'* to be attractive. But really that's just a defence mechanism to make themselves feel better.

For an example of this in motion: the guy who responded to me saying that women essentially ask for harassment because they like 'bad boys' also took time to empathise with nice guys and paint himself as one! In what world does having those abhorrent views make you a nice guy?! Yet I've no doubt he considers himself one. And he probably is that stereotype in the real world, but then put him behind a keyboard and all of this bile starts to come out. Maybe he's not as nice as he thinks he is and his bitterness is caused by a lack of female attraction which is caused by...you've guessed it...a lack of confidence and self-awareness!

*Btw when did the world get so black & white? I can go back and forth between being an absolute arsehole and a saint myself depending on how I slept the night before!

silverharp wrote: »

"Hello is it okay if I talk to you for a minute?" this is borderline autistic , there are a million reasons and situations why one person might strike up a conversation with another, people are spontaneous and its not how the world works. if someone said that to me, i'd be here we go they are going to talk to me about Jesus

again there are so many unknowns here, like above people like to talk and its spontaneous. i'd be the first to say that if you get a bunch of monosyllable responses even if its just someone trying to shoot the breeze , take the hint. and you certainly cant lump chatting to someone at a bus stop with sex

See you understand what I mean but still you're trying to disagree, which makes me wonder what this is really about. Say your point, like, don't be afraid of being seen as disgraceful. You're disagreeing with me for the sake of it now and arguing nothing, so obviously there's a point you want to make that you don't want to say. Say it, it's a safe space, I don't know your name and presumably nobody else does.

Of course you don't have to literally ask for positive consent to spark up conversation, but you should lean more towards that than assuming people want your attention and working backwards. The latter is currently the norm. Don't believe me? Ask literally any woman you know some of the bad responses they've gotten from guys who've cold approached them when they're out and politely turn them down, every single one of them will have a story or ten to tell.

tritium

leggo wrote: »

The trope gets rolled out by 'nice guys', as if 'niceness' (which is just an empty word that practically, in this sense, is translated into passivity and false niceness because of a desperate need to be liked by others) is the attractive ideal. It's not. Niceness has about as much to do with attractiveness as it does with football skill. Confidence and self-awareness is attractive and people don't necessarily scan someone's moral compass when initially attracted to them, so bitter onlookers can often perceive 'arseholes'* to be attractive. But really that's just a defence mechanism to make themselves feel better.

For an example of this in motion: the guy who responded to me saying that women essentially ask for harassment because they like 'bad boys' also took time to empathise with nice guys and paint himself as one! In what world does having those abhorrent views make you a nice guy?! Yet I've no doubt he considers himself one. And he probably is that stereotype in the real world, but then put him behind a keyboard and all of this bile starts to come out. Maybe he's not as nice as he thinks he is and his bitterness is caused by a lack of female attraction which is caused by...you've guessed it...a lack of confidence and self-awareness!

Um sorry but all im seeing here is lots of your own fairly dogmatic opinion wrapped up as fact. Honestly I'm not sure the guy you're using as an example is the one coming across as bitter here

leggo

tritium wrote: »

Um sorry but all im seeing here is lots of your own fairly dogmatic opinion wrapped up as fact. Honestly I'm not sure the guy you're using as an example is the one coming across as bitter here

What are you even claiming I'm bitter about?! Do you even know or are you just saying "I know you are but what am I"? :pac:

Good to see you're supporting the "women bring harassment on themselves" side though, history will judge you well for that!

johnnyskeleton

leggo wrote: »

This is one of the most disturbing posts I've read on here in a long time. You went the scenic route, but basically you made the argument that women are asking to be harassed or abused.

They dont respond to it with the universal abhorrence that you would like them to do in your idealised world.

I never made the argument that women go for 'bad boys', that's such a lazy argument cobbled together by frustrated men trying to make excuses for being too passive and letting the world pass them by ("I'm not getting laid because I'm so perfect, it's not my problem, it's the world's").

That was exactly what you were saying. You said something distasteful about how you couldnt get a kiss for love nor money and it was in the context of you saying you were very respectful to women.

In fact, I made the exact opposite argument that even stereotypical 'nice guys' I've met are just as likely to be creepy.

No you didnt. In your schema there are nice guys and alphas, to use american slang. But what you failed to respond to was my point that we should blame individuals for their bad behaviour, not seek to impose the responsibility on your perceieved group. That you still want to jam people into groups suggests that you might not have understood or even read my post.

You obviously see yourself as the former so you said "I think it's disturbing that you hinted at that" (I never hinted that just because someone is 'nice' they will do this, I made the point that you can't just deflect this based off social status or personality type and that I've seen guilty parties across the board) while you completely bought into the stereotype that 'bad boys' are all guilty of this because women 'reward' them. You've read what you wanted into my point to suit your world view then discarded the part that didn't suit. That world view is so ignorant of the real world, I don't know where to begin. Should I start at "When a man and a woman love each other very much..."?

I dont want to put myself into either of your supposed groups because I dont see them as relevant. Im not going to respond to your attempts at personal attacks.

The reality is, your mother has gone through this in some way in her lifetime. If you have a sister? So has she. Every single woman has a story about being harassed and receiving excessive, unwanted attention from men.

I dont agree. You simply cannot know this about every woman unless you set the bar for unwanted attention at its very lowest i.e. some man looked at them once in public.

That doesn't mean that all men are guilty or 'sinners', but it does mean that there is a societal problem in how men are educated about what is and isn't okay when dealing with women. I never received those classes in school during the early 00's, did you?

The only place youd recieve such classes is in a feminist/gender studies college course, to be honest. Its so detached from reality that no school would even know how to start it.

You simply haven't opened up your eyes or talked to enough women open-mindedly if you don't see it, and the fact that you're rationalising the behaviour of abusers with lazy stereotypes like saying that women are asking for it disturbs the **** out of me tbh.

What disturbs you really is that I dont accept the ideology that you have swallowed hook line and sinker.

johnnyskeleton

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We do punish the individuals only. If someone causes harm, it’s their responsibility.

So what would you change about the current situation?

Nothing. Im advocating that the system we have, imperfect though it is, is the best way of dealing with transgressors. I am doing so in this thread by disagreeing with Fintan that because he saw an incident from some boys that it must be true of all boys and his "something simply must be done about it" hyperbole.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

I don't know if he has read the situation wrongly, he just failed to change the mind of the pursuee . Why should it lead to trouble? There are clearly situations where prudence is called for like work or for whatever reason having someone at a disadvantage for example employee customer, or landlord tenant

In any case where someone says they're not interested and that doesn't deter the pursuer, the pursuer is leaving themselves open to trouble. That's the same in any walk of life really. If they persist and succeed, you'll never hear about it. If they get called a creep for ignoring the signs and continuing the pursuit, that's fair enough.

silverharp wrote:

I don't think it matters, all things being equal there is nothing objectively wrong with attempting to change the other person's mind so whether they were playing hard to get is irrelevant.

Surely you can see that from the moment someone ignores the signs and continues to try to change the other person's mind, they're wide open to being perceived as a pest. If they fail, they probably are being a pest.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Candie wrote: »

I had half forgotten being cornered myself by a group of boys as a schoolgirl on a bus, until I read that. I don't think it would hurt to make sure that everyone is aware - male and female - of the effects of intimidation.

I disagree with a large part of your post. Intimidation is not reserved for females, it's horrible for everybody.

tritium

leggo wrote: »

What are you even claiming I'm bitter about?! Do you even know or are you just saying "I know you are but what am I"? :pac:

Good to see you're supporting the "women bring harassment on themselves" side though, history will judge you well for that!

A seriously you can **** right off with that attempt to twist the arguement. Its a standard tool of certain groups and people on here are well wise to it.

As for history, i doubt it actually gives two ****s about you or I

leggo

Yeah JohnnySkeleton, you didn't understand my post at all, or you did and re-purposed it to suit your own world view, which I don't support at all.

The debate we're having is whether or not young boys are educated as to what is appropriate and not when dealing with women. My argument is that we weren't when I was younger. My post basically explained how, because of my peers' behaviour, I saw it as the norm to do stuff like feel up girls despite them being uncomfortable. I wasn't comfortable doing this therefore I remained shiftless. The point being neither I nor they knew what was normal and what was not, we weren't educated towards it, not that they were 'right' and I wasn't. To make the latter point would imply that the girls (who, remember, I explained were extremely uncomfortable) secretly 'enjoyed it'. That fits in with your argument about women 'encouraging' this behaviour, but it's not the point I was making at all. It's a huge and slightly disturbing leap to make. It's revealing how you read it that way.

My point about alphas and nice guys was the opposite of how you purposed it. It was to remove the problem from any stereotype or personality trait. I've personally witnessed people guilty of this across the board as far as personality types. It's not just powerful Hollywood executives who carry on like this, it's people within your group of friends too and you're wilfully blind if you don't see it.

And the fact that you don't think this is something that every woman on the planet has witnessed or experienced personally just tells me one thing: you don't know or (perhaps deliberately) haven't talked to many women about this. Stay in your bubble by all means to protect your weird world view where women secretly want to be abused, but don't try and tell me the grass isn't green. I won't even engage you on that point because it's too ignorant to even treat seriously.

leggo

tritium wrote: »

A seriously you can **** right off with that attempt to twist the arguement. Its a standard tool of certain groups and people on here are well wise to it.

As for history, i doubt it actually gives two ****s about you or I

I'm twisting nothing, you claimed I was "bitter" and I asked you what I would be bitter about. You dodged that question and accused me of twisting the argument. Isn't that doing the very thing you're accusing me of?

And, yes, whether you realise it or not that's the side of the argument you're on here. JohnnySkeleton made the point that women "encourage" harassment, you quoted a continuation of my debate with him about that and called me "bitter". That's what happened, no twisting necessary.

tritium

leggo wrote: »

I'm twisting nothing, you claimed I was "bitter" and I asked you what I would be bitter about. You dodged that question and accused me of twisting the argument. Isn't that doing the very thing you're accusing me of?

And, yes, whether you realise it or not that's the side of the argument you're on here. JohnnySkeleton made the point that women "encourage" harassment, you quoted a continuation of my debate with him about that and called me "bitter". That's what happened, no twisting necessary.

Meanwhile in the real world......

Leggo looked to build an outrage wagon by getting their own spin on a post someone made (which that poster has since i believe tried to put them straight on but you know, no outrage mileage in that)

Then refuses to debate the point in favour of looking for some more outrage...

Then completely misunderstands the social tropes at the heart of the actual arguement. When this is pointed out to them, rather than pulling their neck in, as most folks would, they go full confrontation mode, accusing people of being bitter, insecure etc.

Its a kind of a parody at this stage tbh, and once I realise people are just being zealots I tend to walk away cause they tend to be unable to see anything else. So all the best and glws for the snakeoil.

leggo

tritium wrote: »

Meanwhile in the real world......

Leggo looked to build an outrage wagon by getting their own spin on a post someone made (which that poster has since i believe tried to out them straight on but you know, no outrage mileage in that)

Then refuses to debate the point in favour of looking for some more outrage...

Then completely misunderstands the social tropes at the heart of the actual arguement. When this is pointed out to them, rather than pulling their neck in, as most folks would, they go full confrontation mode, accusing people of being bitter, insecure etc.

Its a kind of a parody at this stage tbh, and once I realise people are just being zealots I tend to walk away cause they tend to be unable to see anything else. So all the best and glws for the snakeoil.

You should probably learn how basic spelling and grammar works before you start accusing people of being unable to understand something.

tritium

leggo wrote: »

You should probably learn how basic spelling and grammar works before you start accusing people of being unable to understand something.

If i was dyslexic would that post make you a bad person?

(Im not btw, just on a small mobile keyboard but you dont know that do you?)

leggo

If you were dyslexic it'd explain why you spelled it 'arguement'. Now that I know you're working off a small mobile keyboard, I have no idea because it's not as if 'u' is right beside 'e' or anything. I think that's how you think you spell it?

But yeah, I'm the one who doesn't understand stuff...

mzungu

Rebekah Scarce Geek wrote: »

I disagree with a large part of your post. Intimidation is not reserved for females, it's horrible for everybody.

I am quite sure that was not being implied in that post you quoted.