professore wrote: » I agree with you, except the part about that it's exclusively men who harass, and exclusively women who get harassed. It's more common that way, but by no means is it exclusive.
professore wrote: » So it is totally dependent on context.
Press_Start wrote: » You're goddamn right. I can say "creepy things" to the girls I'm good friends with and they know it's a bit of craic. I've told my girlfriends best friend she has nice tits in the company of my missus and friends when it was "appropirate".
Press_Start wrote: » You're goddamn right. I can say "creepy things" to the girls I'm good friends with and they know it's a bit of craic.
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » Monica Lewinsky tweeted this. ...
[Deleted User] wrote: » each to their own. I do approach women on the street, in a bookstore, etc. I've had plenty of women express that they weren't interested, and I didn't go any further. No worries. Smile politely, wish them a good day, and go about my business elsewhere. Just as I've had women express their thanks for the honest compliment or women who were happy to go for a coffee with me. The key is the manner in which the approach is done. Politeness is everything.
Sure, that's an easy example. There's more than simply relying on body language there. There are loads of examples of how women can show they have absolutely no interest in a guy... and the guy should recognise it. I'm not disagreeing about that. But body language is still not a reliable guide.
So, for you, an honest compliment without any expectation of more is now creepy. Gotcha.
And I agree. These guys rarely withdraw. But these guys do not represent the majority. Do you genuinely believe that most men behave that way? Being rude and persisting in the face of lack of interest?
Why not? I've had women do it to me. All without any expectation beyond getting to know each other. Or establishing if there is/can be interest/attraction.
I'm not suggesting that other men behave as I do.
And while all these claims that men donI wonder how many of those relationships would have occured if the guy was so fearful of offending the girl simply by asking her out?
I have no idea the connection of arranged marriages to this topic.
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » Monica Lewinsky tweeted this. I know there are loads of rumours about Bill but I thought what occurred between him and Lewinsky was consensual? Or is that Clinton promised her a promotion in return for sexual services?
Candie wrote: » It's probably unconnected. There are plenty who would have considered Monica fair game after the scandal.
givyjoe wrote: » Eh, what are you babbling on about? Have you confused me with someone else? I'm fairly certain I know the difference between what reasonable minded folks would consider to be 'a creepy one'. Not sure you do though, as you've specifically said that approaching a woman (which would like start with a simple hello or comment) and actually striking up a conversation is 'creepy'. That's a really odd viewpoint. As for women not being able to win, not sure really sure what you're on about. I also made no such claim that 'they liked it'. But I'm fairly certain millions of relationships would never have happened if guys (or girls) hadn't struck up a conversation with a stranger. You do know that there are many, many women who you know.. join gyms, take up activities and a whole host of other things to meet people, including a potential partner (and guys likewise). You seem to be pointing towards this #metoo as some kind of definitive list of how all women do NOT like to be approached. Maybe we should set up a #yesplease hashtag as an experiment to see how women (and men) DO like to be approached, so we can avoid all this nastiness in the future. Perhaps you have mad some damaging encounters that have tainted your viewpoint, but saying that a guy (or girl) striking up a conversation with someone they don't yet know, is creepy by default.. well that's a rather depressing point of view. Are there some rules we need to make law governing social behavior when it comes to interacting with a potential new partner?
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » Pretty sure it is the Clinton incident. She gives talks about being the first person to be publicly shamed on the internet.
LLMMLL wrote: » It's not so much a problem in Ireland where as far as I know the vast vast majority of men would not randomly approach a woman. But my sister is in the US and it's incredibly common over there. At first she found it amusing that someone would ask for her number while queueing in the bank but it gets to the stage where she just wants to get through one day without a guy cracking onto her on the subway or while she's out for a jog. I've been on the phone to her while she's out for a walk hearing her telling a guy to go away as he approaches her because she knows what's coming.
Now your behaviour probably doesn't upset anyone as it's rare in Ireland. But if it is so normal and acceptable it should be ok for more guys to do it. And then you have a situation where women would be annoyed by your behaviour because it happens to them so often. The truth is it's not really acceptable and polite in Ireland. It's just rare. And if you're walking away straight after you've no idea if she's actually upset or happy that you approached her.
Can you give an example where you think a woman who subsequently expressed an annoyance at being approached did not communicate it adequately in her body language. The signs are as I stated and they're universal. I've seen them many a time. It is an easy example and it's the most common one.
If it's to a complete randomers then yes. Absolutely.
Never said the majority of men do this. I'm a man and I don't. The question is whether it's acceptable for the men who do do this to do it. I'm saying it's not.
Because its creepy.
Good. I'd hate to see it become common in Ireland.
I've been pretty clear that I'm not expecting men to never ask a woman out. I've talked about appropriate situations to do it in.
The point is that just because something can occasionally result in a. Happy relationship does not mean that behaviour or tradition is a good thing In general.
professore wrote: » Let's be honest, it's kind of hard to force someone to give you a blowjob. All you got to do is clamp your jaws shut on the offending member. If Monica Lewinsky is referring to Bill Clinton with MeToo, that is ridiculous. She was hung out to dry though. Ole Bill was quite the creep
B0jangles wrote: » Are you comparing words on a screen with the face-to-face interactions I was talking about? No-one can force you to read their posts, you can either put them on ignore or just scroll on by. No matter how much you dislike and disagree with a person's posts, they cannot actually pop out of the screen and attack you. The same cannot be said about a person who is standing right there in front of you. I know that you know this perfectly well.
B0jangles wrote: » The part of Kylith's post you chose to highlight was putting in clear and simple terms the basic advice that women are given all the time - be wary, be watchful, don't put yourself in risky situations. You see versions of it all the time in this very forum, in the slightly disguised but oh so familiar form of the unlocked car analogy.
Every man on a quiet street is a potential threat Every man walking behind us could be a rapist Men we don't know are threats Men we do know are even bigger threats The single biggest threat to women is men
B0jangles wrote: » Women are expected to simultaneously be conscious of the fact that this is a dangerous world and, for example, not to expect to be able to walk down dark streets in perfect safety but at the same time, they are paranoid and unfair and mean if they are wary of men. The core message seems to be 'Life's unfair and tough, it's foolish to think you can leave your car analogy (ie body) unlocked and not have it stolen, but at the same time you ought to trust ME because I told you I'm trustworthy'
dudara wrote: » What she has posted is not cr*p as far as a lot of women are concerned. I think you would have to search extremely hard to find one woman on the planet who has not been made feel uncomfortable by a man at some stage.
dudara wrote: » This does not mean that all men are sex-pests or rapists - far from it - and I definitely do not subscribe to that line of thought.
dudara wrote: » I do think though that men can be oblivious at times to the amount of cr*p women put up with from men. See, the rapist in a dark alleyway scenario is easier to understand. It's a clear threat situation and we all (men/women) can picture that. For me, the problem is the far more insidious type incidents. My personal experiences aren't the worst but I bet you that they're probably far more common than the rapist scenario: ...For me, I just want the men in my life to be aware that this cr*p happens. Call it out when you see it. I can deal with it, but not everyone can.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Yes, I treat online interactions the same way I treat offline interactions, and so when someone says something I think isn't right, I'll either dismiss it out of hand, or I'll challenge it, regardless as you say of who says it or writes it or whatever. I won't waste time with someone who's just saying or posting crap for the sake of it, and that's why I generally like I said earlier, avoid twitter, the digital equivalent of syphilis. The part of kylith's post I highlighted was this - That's the one and only part I called crap, because it is crap. The rest of her post I could completely understand where she was coming from. Now in terms of what passes for 'advice' given to women on here 'to protect themselves', I've also questioned that crap, because it is crap, and the motivation behind it is transparent as glass, particularly in the recent thread on George Hook's 'musings'. There's no polite way to say someone is talking shyte, when they really are talking ****e, or posting shyte, but I don't waste time with the car analogy crap coming from someone who's opinion I can already see is not for changing. I don't fcuking trust myself most of the time so no, I wouldn't expect any woman to trust me tbh :pac: However, having said that, I do know where you're coming from, and as I've always said when that sort of 'advice' is doled out - what woman is expected to take that seriously? It's bull****, and the person saying it knows bloody well that women aren't going to take it seriously. It's a transparent attempt to shift the responsibility for the actions of the person who did wrong, onto the person they wronged. At the same time, this is why I was questioning the idea behind statements like this - You're asking people to challenge crap, but the crap you agree with should be allowed a free pass. I really don't work like that, my bullshít detector is gender neutral. That's not the part of kylith's post I was saying was crap. Of course it's not, and I completely understood where she was coming from. It's the next bit caused a wtf? moment, this - I really don't know how else anyone is supposed to interpret that? How is that saying anything other than suggesting all men are sex-pests or rapists? Sorry, "potential" threat, "could" be a rapist. I'd respectfully suggest someone with that mentality should really seek professional help, because that kind of thinking just isn't normal, and it's certainly not the kind of thinking I would be encouraging in girls and young women. It's the sort of stuff though that is encouraged on social media and a minority (thankfully) of girls and young women incorporate it into their thinking, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy - they become more anxious and so... hyper-aware, to the point where it's exhausting, mentally and physically. It's debilitating, and it affects the way they interact with the opposite sex, who are indeed their families, their friends, their co-workers, their boyfriends, their husbands... basically they do indeed come to look at every man as a potential threat to their safety and well-being, when the reality is that the kind of horror stories they read on social media are actually incredibly unlikely ever to happen to them. It's the mere thought of it though, has them in that state of mind where they believe they have to be hyper-vigilant 24/7, and it's reinforced through confirmation bias. They're quite aware of it already, you don't get to be 40 years of age and not be aware of these things. Hell you learn these things from the moment you're born, it's never had to be explicitly explained to people because they learn social standards from everyone in their lives, not just their parents or their peers. Some men simply choose to disregard what they've learned throughout their lives, and they aren't going to be told any different, by anyone, either man nor woman, and they're certainly not going to listen to women on social media who are asking them to stop, thinking that a hashtag or telling of their experiences of those type of men is actually going to stop them or have them consider the repercussions of their behaviour.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I've spent time in a variety of states in the US, and I think it's a rather strange place. Full of extreme views and loads upon loads of minority groups/associations all believing they have the right to speak their piece/do their thing. It's also a breeding ground for the PUA scene and seducton.alt.fast ideologies regarding dating. I wouldn't hold up the states as being a comfortable environment for dating... for men or women.
My way works because I'm polite. I'm not getting angry/offended because someone refuses my attention. If I meet someone who is hostile, I walk away. Simple as that.
Body language is often based on culture. Approach someone from a culture or background different from yours and you will get different visual cues. That problem is compounded depending on how much she has travelled, who her friends, idols, etc, are.
And I agree with you... however I object to the portrayal of our gender as being guilty without reinforcing that it is still a minority behaving in such a bad manner. Claiming that sexual harassment is a widespread problem without providing statistical evidence is suggesting that the majority are guilty...
Yup. Selected and limited venues approved by you. Can't agree. Most of the best loving couples I know (who have remained together) met randomly. Their own stories show how lucky they were, and very few of them met in the traditionally acceptable venues. (although honestly that could be a reflection of the type of friends I have. Doesn't change my perspective though.) And I would put the bar/club scene to be far worse places for the safety of women, than approaching someone in a cafe/bookstore or even in a crowded street.
B0jangles wrote: » Jack, I'll be honest I had to read your post 4 times before I could make sense of it, and I still think you are missing the point by a large margin. Whether such the actual risk justifies such caution, the majority of women are brought up to be very aware of their surroundings, to be aware of the importance of not being in isolated places by themselves, to be aware if someone might be following them at night and so on. That is the common experience of most women. You can handwave it away as nonsense all you like but you will always be speaking from a position of ignorance. That you think it's a recent phenomenon that is somehow linked to social media shows just how little you know. The first advice I got on the subject was when I was about ten, and it was from my grandmother (born 1912). She was passing on things that her own mother had told her.
LLMMLL wrote: » You seem to be avoiding my point. The dating scene in the US isn't all PUA. What annoys my sister, and I'm guessing most women , are the constant approaches. If a significant amount of men behave like you it quickly becomes a very negative environment. You're trying to find any reason why the US dating scene (which is basically many men acting in the way you act) is dysfunctional while avoiding the most obvious reason.
Just because you think you're not bothering women doesn't mean you're not.
My friend who was harassed if you remember the example I gave, wasn't rude to the guy, she didn't get angry and tell him to feck off. He probably thinks his behaviour was fine and had no effect on her because he wasnt abusive. She still had to leave the area to avoid him though.
I'm not saying you dive bomb. But if a woman says no thank you to you and you go "can't blame a guy for trying" and move on you've no idea if it bothered her or not. The fact that you were polite does not mean she found it a positive or neutral experience.
And in what exact culture does a woman looking annoyed grimacing and not partaking in conversation mean she's receptive to advances? I'd love to know
If it's confusing to you we can say that in Irish culture it means "leave me alone you Tool"
What statistical data would you be happy with. Because it would have to be based on self reporting. Have you harassed a woman it are you a woman who has been harassed. No man is going to admit he harassed and it's clear from the reaction to #metoo that you'd try to minimize women's self reported experiences.
So most of the couple's you know was a case of a man randomly approaching a woman with no prior interaction and no reason to believe she was interested? Could you give 3 short examples? Because I find that extremely hard to believe.
it's clear from the reaction to #metoo that you'd try to minimize women's self reported experiences.
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
