Is All This Harassment On this Video

[Red Terror Dr.]

Surely some of it is. But all of it? Help enlighten me, female comerades. Tell me what you think. I was surfing through youtube and came across this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

[Creative Destruction]

I'm not female, but it seems like harassment to me.. as a human being.

[The Feral Underclass]

Surely some of it is. But all of it? Help enlighten me, female comerades. Tell me what you think. I was surfing through youtube and came across this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

If it's not harassment, what is it? I mean, are you saying that it's okay for men to shout out sexualised comments about the appearance of a woman who's just walking down a street?

[Sinister Intents]

If it's not harassment, what is it?

I know this isn't directed at me, but about 5 years ago I would've told you it was guys being nice and the girl should learn to take a compliment and thst she shouldn't overreact just because guys are doing what guys do. Of course my view is against this harassment and with a hatred of the rape culture that exists.

[Tim Cornelis]

If it's not harassment, what is it? I mean, are you saying that it's okay for men to shout out sexualised comments about the appearance of a woman who's just walking down a street?

Not all of it was sexual though. So I'm also interested in whether all of it is considered harassment.

Saying "have a nice evening" or "how are you?" is clearly singling out a woman, so it's not an equivalent of a nice greeting to just anybody (as is suggested by many in the comments)... but if it's used to see if there's any positive reaction, and then strike up a normal conversation though with romantic interest (and disengage when there's a negative or indifferent one), would you consider that harassment?

[Creative Destruction]

Not all of it was sexual though. So I'm also interested in whether all of it is considered harassment.

Saying "have a nice evening" or "how are you?" is clearly singling out a woman, so it's not an equivalent of a nice greeting to just anybody (as is suggested by many in the comments)... but if it's used to see if there's any positive reaction, and then strike up a normal conversation though with romantic interest (and disengage when there's a negative or indifferent one), would you consider that harassment?

Yeah. She's not in a bar and there was no clear eye contact she made (these guys weren't saying "have a nice evening" to everyone that we could see). She's walking down the street. There's a big difference in the social contexts. Also, notice how women don't generally do this kind of thing, so it's almost exclusively something that men do to women. This isn't some equitable exchange of admiration on the streets. It's an expression of an entitlement to a woman's attention that men feel like they have, and they couch it in being a "compliment".

[The Feral Underclass]

Not all of it was sexual though. So I'm also interested in whether all of it is considered harassment.

Saying "have a nice evening" or "how are you?" is clearly singling out a woman, so it's not an equivalent of a nice greeting to just anybody (as is suggested by many in the comments)... but if it's used to see if there's any positive reaction, and then strike up a normal conversation though with romantic interest (and disengage when there's a negative or indifferent one), would you consider that harassment?

Okay, so firstly the term "sexual harassment" is not actually how Hollaback termed what happened to her. They refer to it as street-harassment. So are Hollaback right in their claim? I would say yes, of course, since harassment is essentially defined as unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication. That woman walked down a street and was constantly spoken to, catcalled, whistled at and had advances made on her without her consent from men who gave uninvited conduct and communication.

Now, I'd go so far as to say that it was all sexual. I would do that because in my view sexual harassment is the same as harassment but of a sexual nature. How do we know it's sexual in nature? Well, sometimes it's probably going to be obvious because of what is said or done, but also we have to look at the motives. Why did the men speak to a woman and conduct themselves in a way that was not invited? It's because they sexualised her? Of course, there's no direct evidence to support that claim, but to any one with an ounce of common sense, it's evident what the motives for those interactions were.

Did the woman in that video give any indication to any of the men who spoke to her that she was interested in them speaking to her? She was walking down the street with a sense of purpose, not giving any one eye contact and minding her own business. Why would any guy think it was appropriate therefore to interject themselves into her life? That is harassment and if it has the motive for being "romantic" then it is sexual in nature.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yeah. She's not in a bar and there was no clear eye contact she made (these guys weren't saying "have a nice evening" to everyone that we could see). She's walking down the street. There's a big difference in the social contexts. Also, notice how women don't generally do this kind of thing, so it's almost exclusively something that men do to women. This isn't some equitable exchange of admiration on the streets. It's an expression of an entitlement to a woman's attention that men feel like they have, and they couch it in being a "compliment".


Okay, so firstly the term "sexual harassment" is not actually how Hollaback termed what happened to her. They refer to it as street-harassment. So are Hollaback right in their claim? I would say yes, of course, since harassment is essentially defined as unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication. That woman walked down a street and was constantly spoken to, catcalled, whistled at and had advances made on her without her consent from men who gave uninvited conduct and communication.

Now, I'd go so far as to say that it was all sexual. I would do that because in my view sexual harassment is the same as harassment but of a sexual nature. How do we know it's sexual in nature? Well, sometimes it's probably going to be obvious because of what is said or done, but also we have to look at the motives. Why did the men speak to a woman and conduct themselves in a way that was not invited? It's because they sexualised her? Of course, there's no direct evidence to support that claim, but to any one with an ounce of common sense, it's evident what the motives for those interactions were.

Did the woman in that video give any indication to any of the men who spoke to her that she was interested in them speaking to her? She was walking down the street with a sense of purpose, not giving any one eye contact and minding her own business. Why would any guy think it was appropriate therefore to interject themselves into her life? That is harassment and if it has the motive for being "romantic" then it is sexual in nature.

I acknowledge that she is singled out as a young attractive woman, and therefore there's clearly sexual undertones in each and every of these comments. I acknowledge that the majority of the comments were not geared toward initiating an enduring conversation (and from this it follows that there is a perceived entitlement to her attention), and the one that was was still harassment since she did not give positive feedback from which consent can reasonably inferred.

The Feral Underclass talks about it being uninvited, unwelcome, interjecting, and advances without consent. But is it therefore by default harassment to strike up a conversation with a stranger you find (sexually) attractive? (or harassment with a stranger you don't find sexually attractive?) I don't see how it's possible to consent in advance to advances, so are all advances therefore harassment?

So let's say I see a girl I find attractive and I say something like 'hi, how are you?' (in a way that you can reasonably expect a response, so not from behind her back) where if she gives a negative reaction I disengage, but if she reacts positively I try to strike up a conversation, is that harassment? She did not consent to me giving my initial comment, but I'm not forcing myself on her socially if she makes it clear she is not interested.

[ColumnNo.4]

From a legal perspective she hasn't vocalised disapproval so there is no evidence that yhey are continued unwanted actions , also the perpetrators vary so no single individual is harassing. It is, without a doubt, rude, inconsiderate and should not be tolerated.

[Tim Cornelis]

From a legal perspective she hasn't vocalised disapproval so there is no evidence that yhey are continued unwanted actions , also the perpetrators vary so no single individual is harassing. It is, without a doubt, rude, inconsiderate and should not be tolerated.

A legal perspective does not necessarily, and often (usually?) does not conform to moral standards, at least not the ones we uphold as communists. By the same token, when engaging in mutually agreed upon behaviour, consent is often not vocalised either (ordinarily, a person does not state 'I agree to action X'), but can reasonably be inferred from body language. Her non-response is clearly a negative response to unwanted actions. She makes no indication that she approves the actions.

[Creative Destruction]

I acknowledge that she is singled out as a young attractive woman, and therefore there's clearly sexual undertones in each and every of these comments. I acknowledge that the majority of the comments were not geared toward initiating an enduring conversation (and from this it follows that there is a perceived entitlement to her attention), and the one that was was still harassment since she did not give positive feedback from which consent can reasonably inferred.

The Feral Underclass talks about it being uninvited, unwelcome, interjecting, and advances without consent. But is it therefore by default harassment to strike up a conversation with a stranger you find (sexually) attractive? (or harassment with a stranger you don't find sexually attractive?) I don't see how it's possible to consent in advance to advances, so are all advances therefore harassment?

So let's say I see a girl I find attractive and I say something like 'hi, how are you?' (in a way that you can reasonably expect a response, so not from behind her back) where if she gives a negative reaction I disengage, but if she reacts positively I try to strike up a conversation, is that harassment? She did not consent to me giving my initial comment, but I'm not forcing myself on her socially if she makes it clear she is not interested.

Why is your attraction a valid reason to try and strike up a conversation with a woman at, say, a bus stop? Again, what's crucial here, I think, is social context. There's no reason for you to think that this is an appropriate thing to do, because it's not. You're coming to her as someone you've sexualized, purely. You know nothing of the person other than you want to fuck her. How in the hell is that an appropriate basis for starting a conversation in this context? You're not in a place where people convene to meet each other unless you've done so in advance, like you would be at a party, bar or a club or whatever. You're in a transient social context.

Think about that, and then think about that in a context where this woman you're attracted to might have already been harangued by 10 guys in the day so far, who are approaching her for the exact same reason you are. All the while, she's just trying to get to work, to the coffee shop or wherever she's going. In your scenario, you're still displaying an entitlement to a woman's attention, which is bad enough; but you're feeling entitled to it on the basis of your attraction to her and acting on it, when it wasn't invited in the first place. Yeah, that's harassment. Her hypothetical response, whether she would respond to it negatively or positively is really irrelevant... in a way, it kind of reminds me of this bit:

za7jQ1s1BV0

[The Feral Underclass]

From a legal perspective she hasn't vocalised disapproval so there is no evidence that yhey are continued unwanted actions , also the perpetrators vary so no single individual is harassing. It is, without a doubt, rude, inconsiderate and should not be tolerated.

Further to what Tim said, the issue here is about how men view women. The fact that they feel it is acceptable to make these communications in the first place indicates how the woman is viewed by those men within social space as nothing but a vehicle for their sexual fantasies.

The men in that video clearly feel comfortable and in power within their social setting and therefore feel empowered to behave as they do. There's no mutual interaction, it is solely men seeing a woman and feeling entitled to verbalise their sexual interest in her, irrespective of her views.

Also, the fact that these men feel such little respect for her as a person, they feel it is acceptable to objectify her. The first thing they notice is her as a sexual object. Their immediate interaction with her is to objectify her body. They don't care who she is, they don't care what her name is, they don't care what mental state she is -- they see her, they want to fuck her and they tell her. It doesn't matter who she is, how she feels or what her identity is. Her existence is inconsequential...And this is socially acceptable. It is a perfectly legitimate way to behave in this society...

[The Feral Underclass]

The Feral Underclass talks about it being uninvited, unwelcome, interjecting, and advances without consent. But is it therefore by default harassment to strike up a conversation with a stranger you find (sexually) attractive? (or harassment with a stranger you don't find sexually attractive?) I don't see how it's possible to consent in advance to advances, so are all advances therefore harassment?

Do you think it is acceptable to stop a woman in the street after giving you no indication that she wants to have a conversation at all, in a situation without any social context, just so you can have the opportunity to try and have sex with her?


So let's say I see a girl I find attractive and I say something like 'hi, how are you?' (in a way that you can reasonably expect a response, so not from behind her back) where if she gives a negative reaction I disengage, but if she reacts positively I try to strike up a conversation, is that harassment? She did not consent to me giving my initial comment, but I'm not forcing myself on her socially if she makes it clear she is not interested.

Firstly, can we please avoid calling women "girls"?

But It depends on the situation. Are you at a party? Are you in a night club? Are you at work? Is she walking down the street minding her own business?

Look, men think it's okay to just be in the world and then do as they please in these situations: Oh there's a woman, I want to have sex with her so now I'm going to go and speak to her.

In my experience, if someone finds you attractive when they see you in the street they will give you eye contact and maybe a smile. That is an indication that it's okay to start a conversation. If the woman wants you to talk to her or she finds you attractive she will notice you and indicate it. But just because you see a woman in the street and you think she's hot, that doesn't automatically entitle you to go and speak to her just because you can and want to.

This issue isn't just about consent. It's about how men view themselves in the world. My advice to any man would be: If you're unsure, don't do it.

[Loony Le Fist]

Do you think it is acceptable to stop a woman in the street after giving you no indication that she wants to have a conversation at all, in a situation without any social context, just so you can have the opportunity to try and have sex with her?


No. However, I do think that it's perfectly fine for someone to come up to anyone, say hello and have a short conversation. If something interesting develops, maybe even choose to continue the conversation at a later time and exchange phone numbers. The patriarchy shames women into silence. Part of the reason why men feel the need to approach is because the prevailing social order makes this the standard--at least in Latin American countries and the US from my experiences.

If a person appears uninterested, walk away. No harm, no foul. If a person clearly doesn't want to talk to you, it is harassment to continue to do so.



Look, men think it's okay to just be in the world and then do as they please in these situations: Oh there's a woman, I want to have sex with her so now I'm going to go and speak to her.


Well I think anyone should be able to approach anyone else for any reason. Anyone is entitled to approach and attempt conversation with anyone else in a public space. However, no one is entitled to get into anyone personal space of anyone else without permission. Nor is one is entitled to anyone else's body.



In my experience, if someone finds you attractive when they see you in the street they will give you eye contact and maybe a smile. That is an indication that it's okay to start a conversation. If the woman wants you to talk to her or she finds you attractive she will notice you and indicate it. But just because you see a woman in the street and you think she's hot, that doesn't automatically entitle you to go and speak to her just because you can and want to.


Why is anyone not entitled to go and speak to anyone else because they want to--for any reason? Who wants to live in a society like that? As long as that person isn't being disrespectful I don't see how you can argue there is anything wrong with this. Unless you want to start policing thought crimes.



This issue isn't just about consent. It's about how men view themselves in the world. My advice to any man would be: If you're unsure, don't do it.

My advice to men is to introduce yourself to other people. Talk to everyone--male, female, transgender, etc. Be sociable, and stop directing the goal towards sex. Just have conversations, meet people, and have fun. Why should anyone not be entitled to talk to anyone else? That's some elitist bullshit.

[Rosa Partizan]

Stuff like "Good morning" "Bless ya", blahblah Idon'tcare isn't ok either because even this is heavily gendered and onesided. Do you see guys saying this to other guys or women saying it to anyone? The context might be a different one if you live in a small village and everyone says it to each other, I myself lived in such a village where every other person would say it to me and vice versa. But goddamn, it's NYC and why do I see no women saying it to her? And if any of the guys would really want to get to know her, he could step up in a face-to-face encounter and just be nice and polite and accept a no, but I don't see that happening. Saying something while passing by is no honest interest or approach. It's "look, I can say whatever I want and you can't stop me from doing so".

[RevolutionaryThinker]

Yes.

[DOOM]

It doesn't really strike me as a nice greeting when men say good morning while watching on her ass.
I don't really believe that these men were trying to greet her either, they were rather hoping to get a sexually-charged response. So they weren't considering her a human, but rather a sex-object, with the sole purpose of stilling their desire.

[Loony Le Fist]

Stuff like "Good morning" "Bless ya", blahblah Idon'tcare isn't ok either because even this is heavily gendered and onesided. Do you see guys saying this to other guys or women saying it to anyone? The context might be a different one if you live in a small village and everyone says it to each other, I myself lived in such a village where every other person would say it to me and vice versa. But goddamn, it's NYC and why do I see no women saying it to her? And if any of the guys would really want to get to know her, he could step up in a face-to-face encounter and just be nice and polite and accept a no, but I don't see that happening. Saying something while passing by is no honest interest or approach. It's "look, I can say whatever I want and you can't stop me from doing so".

Exactly! Step up, don't be yelling from the sidelines. Say hello, and start a conversation.

I think people really ought to just interact more in general--to get rid of this gendered component. Even in big cities. It shouldn't be gendered to say hello and talk to people.

[Creative Destruction]

Exactly! Step up, don't be yelling from the sidelines. Say hello, and start a conversation.

I think people really ought to just interact more in general--to get rid of this gendered component. Even in big cities. It shouldn't be gendered to say hello and talk to people.

What is gendered is guys walking up and saying "hello" with the intention of getting into a woman's pants. That is the crux of this street harassment.

[Illegalitarian]

Exactly! Step up, don't be yelling from the sidelines. Say hello, and start a conversation.

I think people really ought to just interact more in general--to get rid of this gendered component. Even in big cities. It shouldn't be gendered to say hello and talk to people.

I agree, I hate how shut off from one another and withdrawn people in metropolitan areas seem to be.


I live in a town with three thousand people, I say hi and how are you to every woman and man I meet because that's what everyone else does.. there's a great sense of community here and everyone is friendly with one another, I fucking hate traveling to bigger cities where no one really gives a fuck about anything or anyone else around them and saying "how are you" is sexist because you wouldn't normally say shit to anyone.

It's fucked.

[Illegalitarian]

What is gendered is guys walking up and saying "hello" with the intention of getting into a woman's pants. That is the crux of this street harassment.

I wouldn't go that far. How else are two people supposed to meet each other in social settings, if one person does not approach the other?

It's all about context, and the context here was not guys trying to sleep with a woman or start a romantic relationship with a woman, it was guys being straight up creeps for no reason, it was their libidos pushing air through their mouths and nothing more.

[Rosa Partizan]

What is gendered is guys walking up and saying "hello" with the intention of getting into a woman's pants. That is the crux of this street harassment.

I am a bit unsure about this. I understand every woman walking down the street with the wish of being ignored completely. Mostly I wanna be left completely alone, but most of the times when a guy comes at me, it's not like "hallo, I wanna get to know you"-stuff, but this sleazy or yelly attitude, often enough from a safe distance. I myself started talking to guys a few times when sitting in the university cafeteria (which I consider a public place with no "flirty" background like a bar or anything) and the reaction was utterly positive EVERY time. Or I sometimes tend to walk up to a woman and compliment her on something, be it her style or hair or whatever. Also here, only VERY positive reactions. I kinda don't want this to be impossible if done honestly and respectfully, with the fitting gesture and mimic. But I completely understand every woman that doesn't want an approach of ANY kind, because I feel like that often enough. On the other hand, I don't want it to be impossible to get to know a potential partner or anything in a public place. Sometimes, it would depend on my mood and, I'm gonna be honest about it, the guy's look if I liked his "hello" face-to-face-approach or not. So not at all saying you're wrong, I just don't know a generalized solution to that.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Why is anyone not entitled to go and speak to anyone else because they want to--for any reason? Who wants to live in a society like that? As long as that person isn't being disrespectful I don't see how you can argue there is anything wrong with this. Unless you want to start policing thought crimes.


Every society has social norms outside of which behavior is considered rude, I wouldn't say that's thought policing. If someone is clearly busy minding their own business I would say it's pretty rude of them to just expect that stranger to just drop everything they're doing and talk to them. Hell, I even get annoyed when my friends try to start a conversation when I'm reading or doing homework, isn't it pretty obvious that I'm busy?

[Creative Destruction]

I wouldn't go that far. How else are two people supposed to meet each other in social settings, if one person does not approach the other?

Again, this depends on the social context, which the context is on the street: as I've made clear in my past few posts on this thread.

[Creative Destruction]

I am a bit unsure about this. I understand every woman walking down the street with the wish of being ignored completely. Mostly I wanna be left completely alone, but most of the times when a guy comes at me, it's not like "hallo, I wanna get to know you"-stuff, but this sleazy or yelly attitude, often enough from a safe distance. I myself started talking to guys a few times when sitting in the university cafeteria (which I consider a public place with no "flirty" background like a bar or anything) and the reaction was utterly positive EVERY time. Or I sometimes tend to walk up to a woman and compliment her on something, be it her style or hair or whatever. Also here, only VERY positive reactions. I kinda don't want this to be impossible if done honestly and respectfully, with the fitting gesture and mimic. But I completely understand every woman that doesn't want an approach of ANY kind, because I feel like that often enough. On the other hand, I don't want it to be impossible to get to know a potential partner or anything in a public place. Sometimes, it would depend on my mood and, I'm gonna be honest about it, the guy's look if I liked his "hello" face-to-face-approach or not. So not at all saying you're wrong, I just don't know a generalized solution to that.

Okay, but notice the difference between what I was saying and what you're presenting here: the social contexts are different and the intentions are clearly different. I'm not saying people should be robots or disregarding of others in a public space.

[Rosa Partizan]

Okay, but notice the difference between what I was saying and what you're presenting here: the social contexts are different and the intentions are clearly different. I'm not saying people should be robots or disregarding of others in a public space.

How is the intention different? When I walk up to a guy in the cafeteria, my goal is not to have a chess game with him.

[ColumnNo.4]

The assumption that when a male takes interest in a female his objective is sex is sexist in itself. How one should be treated when it comes to instances such as this should depend on and individuals legitimate intent, not their sex.

[The Feral Underclass]

The assumption that when a male takes interest in a female his objective is sex is sexist in itself. How one should be treated when it comes to instances such as this should depend on and individuals legitimate intent, not their sex.

No one has made that assumption...

[Loony Le Fist]

No one has made that assumption...

Really?



Look, men think it's okay to just be in the world and then do as they please in these situations: Oh there's a woman, I want to have sex with her so now I'm going to go and speak to her.

[The Feral Underclass]

Really?


Look, men think it's okay to just be in the world and then do as they please in these situations: Oh there's a woman, I want to have sex with her so now I'm going to go and speak to her.

Pay attention dickhead. I'm not referring to all situations in which men talk to women, am I? And in any case, what does "take an interest in a female" actually mean if it doesn't mean sex?

[Creative Destruction]

How is the intention different? When I walk up to a guy in the cafeteria, my goal is not to have a chess game with him.

Yeah, I was more referring to your "complimenting a woman on her hair" example. Regardless, I'm not going to play ~both sides~ here. Unless there's some kind of mass movement of guys who feel harassed in cafeterias, I'm not inclined to care or think that this example is an analog to what's going on with street harassment.

[ColumnNo.4]

Pay attention dickhead. I'm not referring to all situations in which men talk to women, am I? And in any case, what does "take an interest in a female" actually mean if it doesn't mean sex?

Believe it not other people can at times be interesting.

[Loony Le Fist]

Every society has social norms outside of which behavior is considered rude, I wouldn't say that's thought policing. If someone is clearly busy minding their own business I would say it's pretty rude of them to just expect that stranger to just drop everything they're doing and talk to them. Hell, I even get annoyed when my friends try to start a conversation when I'm reading or doing homework, isn't it pretty obvious that I'm busy?

It would certainly be ridiculous to expect someone that one is opening a conversation with to drop everything. That would definitely be rude. You are right that if the person is doing something that is obviously occupying their attention, it is also rude to disturb them.

Personally, I would like to see a more feminist society where people can just walk up to anyone (within reason of course) and just start a conversation and have them not feel intimidated or feel like they are being eye-raped. If someone tells you to leave them alone, then you would be a complete asshole not to.

[The Feral Underclass]

...Unless there's some kind of mass movement of guys who feel harassed in cafeterias...

The image of this made me laugh.

[The Feral Underclass]

Believe it not other people can at times be interesting.

You didn't say people (varied) though, did you? You said females (specific). I don't know many examples of men stopping women in the street because they seemed "interesting." I mean, if a guy did that, you'd automatically think it was about sex and even if it wasn't, it'd be fucking creepy.

[Rosa Partizan]

Yeah, I was more referring to your "complimenting a woman on her hair" example. Regardless, I'm not going to play ~both sides~ here. Unless there's some kind of mass movement of guys who feel harassed in cafeterias, I'm not inclined to care or think that this example is an analog to what's going on with street harassment.

no doubt about that you're completely right about a structural problem. Guys wouldn't feel bothered because they don't experience it that often. Most guys would say to me "A woman hitting on me? So hot. That happens too rarely". So that's no societally expected or appreciated pattern, because it's like, how to say...sorry for not putting it the best way, but it's like, me as the bait, I am offering myself, you know what I mean? Many women doing this appear like...desperate? So I am rather taking a societal risk than a guy, because guys hitting on women...boys will be boys, that's normal anyway. Still, somehow, because I do it, I don't wanna instantly condemn every guy doing it in the already mentioned manner.

[ColumnNo.4]

You didn't say people (varied) though, did you? You said females (specific). I don't know many examples of men stopping women in the street because they seemed "interesting." I mean, if a guy did that, you'd automatically think it was about sex and even if it wasn't, it'd be fucking creepy.

Within context. Because someone acknowledges you on the street or attempts to strike up a conversation doesn't mean they're pursuing sex. I have people of all types acknowledge me or try to strike up a conversation here on campus, I don't assume they're pursuing sex.

[Loony Le Fist]

Pay attention dickhead. I'm not referring to all situations in which men talk to women, am I?


No, but that wasn't what we were talking about. Let's review this a minute.


The assumption that when a male takes interest in a female his objective is sex is sexist in itself. How one should be treated when it comes to instances such as this should depend on and individuals legitimate intent, not their sex.

It was claimed that you are assuming that when a male takes an interest in a female, sex is what is being referred to. As you seem to imply here by asking what appears to be a rhetorical question:



And in any case, what does "take an interest in a female" actually mean if it doesn't mean sex?

Are you so obsessed with sex that the only way you can imagine that one could take interest in another person is to mean you want to have sex with them? Wow.

[Rosa Partizan]

do you equate "getting to know each other with the possibility or of developing a romantic interest which would involve sex" with "wanting sex"?

[Loony Le Fist]

no doubt about that you're completely right about a structural problem. Guys wouldn't feel bothered because they don't experience it that often. Most guys would say to me "A woman hitting on me? So hot. That happens too rarely". So that's no societally expected or appreciated pattern, because it's like, how to say...sorry for not putting it the best way, but it's like, me as the bait, I am offering myself, you know what I mean? Many women doing this appear like...desperate? So I am rather taking a societal risk than a guy, because guys hitting on women...boys will be boys, that's normal anyway. Still, somehow, because I do it, I don't wanna instantly condemn every guy doing it in the already mentioned manner.


do you equate "getting to know each other with the possibility or of developing a romantic interest which would involve sex" with "wanting sex"?

Rosa is regulating all over this thread. Keep up the good work. :grin:

[ColumnNo.4]

do you equate "getting to know each other with the possibility or of developing a romantic interest which would involve sex" with "wanting sex"?

The difference between a natural occurrence and a conscious objective.

[Loony Le Fist]

The difference between a natural occurrence and a conscious objective.

I would say that you can have the conscious objective of desiring to build a romantic relationship with someone. Wouldn't you?

EDIT: Though I also note that the original quote involves the word possibility.

[Rosa Partizan]

The difference between a natural occurrence and a conscious objective.

what's a natural occurrence in the context of starting a conversation with someone? I'm not trolling or anything, I'm just wondering. Because when I find someone attractive, either I'm interested in sex right from the start or I'm interested in getting to know them from a "romantic" point of view, which would at some point lead to sex if they wanted it, too. I don't walk up to a guy with an interest in friendship and I don't think that this would be a common behavior.

[The Feral Underclass]

Within context. Because someone acknowledges you on the street or attempts to strike up a conversation doesn't mean they're pursuing sex.

Right, but I never said it did, did I? What I said was that within the context of wanting to pursue sex with a woman, it's not okay for men to just approach them without any indication that this is wanted. The conversation I was having with Tim was specifically about when men want to have sex with women.

Striking up a conversation with someone is fine, but you don't do that by trying to stop them in the street as they walk past you having given no indication that they want you to.

And anyone who watches that video and didn't think those "innocent" good mornings were motivated by anything other than sex, they are incredibly naive.

[ColumnNo.4]

I'll answer both questions. A romantic relationship is one thing, sex is another. When I say "natural occurrence" I'm referring to sex that occurs naturally, by chance, not sex that occurs because you've consciously hashed out a plan and executed said plan effectively.

[ColumnNo.4]

Right, but I never said it did, did I? What I said was that within the context of wanting to pursue sex with a woman, it's not okay for men to just approach them without any indication that this is wanted. The conversation I was having with Tim was specifically about when men want to have sex with women.

Striking up a conversation with someone is fine, but you don't do that by trying to stop them in the street as they walk past you having given no indication that they want you to.

And anyone who watches that video and didn't think those "innocent" good mornings were motivated by anything other than sex, they are incredibly naive.

I didn't say you did and I agree with your argument, to an extent. I have struck up conversations with people here on campus with no indication that they were interested and I'm acquaintances with them to this day.

[The Feral Underclass]

I didn't say you did and I agree with your argument, to an extent. I have struck of conversations with people here on campus with not indication that they were interested and I'm acquaintances with them to this day.

Did the holla at you as you walked down the street minding your own business?

[Rosa Partizan]

Right, but I never said it did, did I? What I said was that within the context of wanting to pursue sex with a woman, it's not okay for men to just approach them without any indication that this is wanted. The conversation I was having with Tim was specifically about when men want to have sex with women.

Striking up a conversation with someone is fine, but you don't do that by trying to stop them in the street as they walk past you having given no indication that they want you to.

And anyone who watches that video and didn't think those "innocent" good mornings were motivated by anything other than sex, they are incredibly naive.

what do you mean by "motivated by sex"? I don't think that any of these guys was thinking that this was the right way to have a conversation that would lead to sex. It was rather about power dynamics. And somehow all of this conversation in this thread is implying that you harass a woman only when you find her attractive and would want to get in her pants. Some guys would be honking at women to ridicule them or whatever. There is no pattern pointing at one direction. I got harassed more often when I was chubbier and when I dressed and styled more "casual". After having lost weight and when wearing cleavage, shoes with heels and red lipstick, I get harassed WAY less. Many of these guys go for women that they find looking insecure or discontent with themselves. Sex or desire of any kind is not THE reason for harassment. I mean, does any of these guys expect that yelling "nice tits" from the other side of the street leads to sex?

[ColumnNo.4]

Did the holla at you as you walked down the street minding your own business?

Did they "holla", no, however we were talking about engagements in general. If someone did "holla" at me if I approved of it then I would smile, if I didn't then I would tell them to fuck off. No, I don't think the comments made towards the woman in the video were respectful.

[The Feral Underclass]

what do you mean by "motivated by sex"?

I mean that their harassment was predicated on their sexual objectification of the woman they were harassing.

[Loony Le Fist]

what do you mean by "motivated by sex"? I don't think that any of these guys was thinking that this was the right way to have a conversation that would lead to sex. It was rather about power dynamics.

Oh good! Some sense and reason in this thread. Yes! :grin:

[Tim Cornelis]

Why is your attraction a valid reason to try and strike up a conversation with a woman at, say, a bus stop?

My attraction is valid to try and start a conversation (why? I really can't answer that), whether there will actually be a conversation is informed by mutual attractiveness (or politeness I guess).


Again, what's crucial here, I think, is social context. There's no reason for you to think that this is an appropriate thing to do, because it's not. You're coming to her as someone you've sexualized, purely. You know nothing of the person other than you want to fuck her. How in the hell is that an appropriate basis for starting a conversation in this context? You're not in a place where people convene to meet each other unless you've done so in advance, like you would be at a party, bar or a club or whatever. You're in a transient social context.

Why is it inappropriate to initiate conversation based on (sexual) attractiveness in a transient social context but apparently appropriate in other social contexts? I don't see why it's any more or less appropriate in a workplace context (she wants to work); a college context (she wants to study); a bar/club/nightlife context (she wants to party/hang out with friends); etc. There's no social context exclusively geared toward romantic and/or sexual engagement, so when is it appropriate to approach a woman? And why then under those circumstances, but not at a bus stop?

If sexual attractiveness disqualifies me from approaching women it sounds like I will die alone.


Think about that, and then think about that in a context where this woman you're attracted to might have already been harangued by 10 guys in the day so far, who are approaching her for the exact same reason you are. All the while, she's just trying to get to work, to the coffee shop or wherever she's going. In your scenario, you're still displaying an entitlement to a woman's attention, which is bad enough; but you're feeling entitled to it on the basis of your attraction to her and acting on it, when it wasn't invited in the first place. Yeah, that's harassment. Her hypothetical response, whether she would respond to it negatively or positively is really irrelevant... in a way, it kind of reminds me of this bit:

I don't feel entitled to it insofar as when I get shut down when a girl does not respond positively that I call her 'stuck up' or 'arrogant' or in any other way cuss her out. I don't feel entitled because I respect her decision to engage or not.

And if we take this logic further, isn't any engagement with women, regardless of context, 'a sense of entitlement'? Then by that logic, all initiating conversation with women is taboo.

And that CK bid, if you meant the "off chance that she's into that" is not at all the same and I don't see how. If anything, it supports my position in that she stopped him, and he respected that, so he did not feel entitled to her.


Do you think it is acceptable to stop a woman in the street after giving you no indication that she wants to have a conversation at all, in a situation without any social context, just so you can have the opportunity to try and have sex with her?

Well, since I'm not forcing myself on her in that I respect her decision to shut me down, yes.


Firstly, can we please avoid calling women "girls"?

I'm fairly young, so I'm attracted to fairly young women, so I guess girls is appropriate? I'm not sure how it's in English, in Dutch it's all awkward. Usually it becomes ladies.


But It depends on the situation. Are you at a party? Are you in a night club? Are you at work? Is she walking down the street minding her own business?

In what situation is it okay then? None of those situations are geared toward sexual engagement -- there are no such social contexts. There's only online services but that's not really 'social'.


Look, men think it's okay to just be in the world and then do as they please in these situations: Oh there's a woman, I want to have sex with her so now I'm going to go and speak to her.

Yes...


In my experience, if someone finds you attractive when they see you in the street they will give you eye contact and maybe a smile. That is an indication that it's okay to start a conversation. If the woman wants you to talk to her or she finds you attractive she will notice you and indicate it. But just because you see a woman in the street and you think she's hot, that doesn't automatically entitle you to go and speak to her just because you can and want to.

I think that's a vague and slightly arbitrary criteria.


Right, but I never said it did, did I? What I said was that within the context of wanting to pursue sex with a woman, it's not okay for men to just approach them without any indication that this is wanted. The conversation I was having with Tim was specifically about when men want to have sex with women.

The reason I spoke of sex, is because even romantic intentions are informed by sexual attractiveness to a stranger. I'm not primarily motivated by sex an sich (in these hypothetical scenarios).

[Creative Destruction]

My attraction is valid to try and start a conversation (why? I really can't answer that),

I really wouldn't stake a position out that you can't actually elucidate. Saying that it is valid for you to do something just because is kind of the height of entitlement.


whether there will actually be a conversation is informed by mutual attractiveness (or politeness I guess).

A bus stop or a transient social venue, where people are constantly coming, going and moving around to get to a place they need to be, is not really an appropriate place to start sussing out whether you're attracted to each other, based on a one-sided advance on your part, unless there has been some clear mutual flirtation going on (body language, like eyeing or what have you.) The reason that you're just attracted to her, and thus have a valid reason to just interject yourself into her day without any prior confirmation that she may be welcome to it, really doesn't hold.


Why is it inappropriate to initiate conversation based on (sexual) attractiveness in a transient social context but apparently appropriate in other social contexts? I don't see why it's any more or less appropriate in a workplace context (she wants to work);

It's not appropriate in the workplace. That is called "workplace harassment".


a college context (she wants to study);

Why would you think it's appropriate to gauge possible sexual feelings when she is studying? That just seems like being a complete dick. Yeah, when she's cramming for her final, I don't think it's safe to assume she wants you to cram yourself into her immediate sphere just so you could see whether or not she wants to get romantic with you.


a bar/club/nightlife context (she wants to party/hang out with friends); etc.

A bar/club/nightlife context lends itself to being a place that people go to meet other people. It would be more appropriate here to see if anything can happen because, well, it's a club. That's what happens in clubs. Clearly, if she's just there to party and hang out with friends and not interested and you keep on, it's harassment. But the social context is different than others. It's still not a guarantee, but it's more socially acceptable to try and strike something up in that setting. Far more, anyway, than if she's trying to walk home, work or study at school.



There's no social context exclusively geared toward romantic and/or sexual engagement, so when is it appropriate to approach a woman?

Who said they needed to be geared exclusively for that?


And why then under those circumstances, but not at a bus stop?

I've already explained why not at a bus stop.


If sexual attractiveness disqualifies me from approaching women it sounds like I will die alone.

Considering I never said sexual attractiveness disqualifies you from approaching women, you might be in luck yet, I suppose! However, approaching women in a place like on the street, at the bus stop, at work, etc., where that kind of thing isn't generally appreciated, and just on the basis of you wanting to fuck her, isn't cool.

But I feel like your social life needs a bit of work if you really can't make out the difference between trying to strike up a conversation, based on a feeling of romance, with women at work vs. at a bar.


I don't feel entitled to it insofar as when I get shut down when a girl does not respond positively that I call her 'stuck up' or 'arrogant' or in any other way cuss her out. I don't feel entitled because I respect her decision to engage or not.

But you feel entitled to put yourself in her space, uninvited, in the first place. That's the issue. Whether she might respond in the positive or negative is irrelevant to your entitlement issue in the beginning. You're basically making an "ends justify the means" argument, and that's an extremely slippery slope.

In the CK bit, in that scenario, it would have turned out "OK" had he gone through and "raped" her. That would've been his sense of entitlement to violate her, uninvited. But that doesn't say anything to the initial act: would have it been okay for him to have done it in the first place, even though, as it turns out, she was going to be okay with it? I don't think so, which is why his reaction is appropriate: "You think I'm going to rape you on the off chance that you're into that shit?" Clearly it's not okay from the beginning. That's the point. Your entitlement to put yourself in her space, uninvited, is not okay from the outset, regardless of whether it was going to turn out fine in the end.


And if we take this logic further, isn't any engagement with women, regardless of context, 'a sense of entitlement'? Then by that logic, all initiating conversation with women is taboo.

No, not at all. Because the logic takes into account the importance of the social context. You can't have "regardless of context" because no one is claiming that and it's not a justifiable leap of logic.

[Slavic]

Well fuck me.

I don't like clubs or parties, and I don't particularly like going to bars. I guess there will never be a socially acceptable venue for me to have a conversation with a women with the chance of such a conversation developing into a romantic relationship.

Not to mention, how are you to even gauge the context of the given social environment without any more of personal interaction? Are we just to assume that people are thinking a certain way just because of the where they are standing/walking?

[Creative Destruction]

Well fuck me.

No.


I don't like clubs or parties, and I don't particularly like going to bars. I guess there will never be a socially acceptable venue for me to have a conversation with a women with the chance of such a conversation developing into a romantic relationship.

That's not what the conversation is about. Try again. Regardless, if the only way you could meet women is by harassing them on the streets or at the bus stop, then you've got bigger issues than what we're talking about here. Sorry buddy. Get that worked on.


Not to mention, how are you to even gauge the context of the given social environment without any more of personal interaction? Are we just to assume that people are thinking a certain way just because of the where they are standing/walking?

Usually, if there is some mutual attraction, there's attendant body language that goes long with that. Unless you're just completely dumb about social interaction, I don't see how this could possibly be an issue.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, since I'm not forcing myself on her in that I respect her decision to shut me down, yes.

And this is a very male attitude. You think just because you haven't not got consent, that's okay for you to just do what you want. It doesn't matter that there may be a possibility that she doesn't want to talk to you, you're just going to do it anyway and deal with it retroactively.

Your desire to do what you want is greater than the prospect of her not wanting it and since she hasn't directly said she doesn't want it you're just going to take the risk because you want to. That's a very self-centred attitude. You're not thinking about the woman, you're just thinking about what you want.

When there is a possibility that someone is not going to give you consent, the most appropriate cause of action is to not do it. Her potentially not wanting something should be of greater concern to you, than your immediate desires. Because as a man, you have a responsibility to ensure that a woman isn't going to feel like she's being harassed by you. Baring in mind that women constantly have to deal with men approaching them in the street or calling out to them, do you really want to put your desires before the possibility of that happening?


I'm fairly young, so I'm attracted to fairly young women, so I guess girls is appropriate? I'm not sure how it's in English, in Dutch it's all awkward. Usually it becomes ladies.

Are you a child? Are you sexually attracted to children? If not, then girl is not appropriate.


In what situation is it okay then? None of those situations are geared toward sexual engagement -- there are no such social contexts. There's only online services but that's not really 'social'.

If you're in a specifically social situation, then making social contact makes more sense than just ambushing a woman as she is walking down the street minding her own business.

I would never stop someone in the street or approach someone without having some indication that they want me to or if the context with which we are situated makes it appropriate.

Perhaps I just have more common sense than you, but I think it's fairly easy to work out whether my behaviour is appropriate or not.


Yes...

That's not an okay way to view how to behave appropriately.


I think that's a vague and slightly arbitrary criteria.

The criteria for social interaction is indication that the person you want to interact with wants you to. That's the criteria. There's nothing vague or arbitrary about that.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't like clubs or parties, and I don't particularly like going to bars. I guess there will never be a socially acceptable venue for me to have a conversation with a women with the chance of such a conversation developing into a romantic relationship.

So basically you're saying your only other option for speaking to women is by randomly stopping them in the street?


Not to mention, how are you to even gauge the context of the given social environment without any more of personal interaction?

By being a self-possessing, common-sense, socially aware adult...


Are we just to assume that people are thinking a certain way just because of the where they are standing/walking?

Pretty much, yeah.

[Loony Le Fist]

By being a self-possessing, common-sense, socially aware adult...


Is there a difference between self-possesion and self-ownership? I hope you aren't turning into a right-winger on us. :laugh:


And this is a very male attitude. You think just because you haven't not got consent, that's okay for you to just do what you want. It doesn't matter that there may be a possibility that she doesn't want to talk to you, you're just going to do it anyway and deal with it retroactively.


This is just the kind of thing that MRAs and anti-feminists love. They get to claim reverse sexism. Please refrain from giving feminism's adversaries ammunition. We need to work on advocating positive philosophy.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's an accurate characterization. I'm saying that this is not an area where it makes sense to fight fire with fire.



Your desire to do what you want is greater than the prospect of her not wanting it and since she hasn't directly said she doesn't want it you're just going to take the risk because you want to. That's a very self-centred attitude. You're not thinking about the woman, you're just thinking about what you want.


Well how do you know what they want? How does one know in advance that someone is unwilling to have a social interaction with another individual without attempting it? Have you never found a person interesting and wanted to speak to them? I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that. I know, it's real self-centered to attempt a conversation with someone that seems interesting somehow. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



When there is a possibility that someone is not going to give you consent, the most appropriate cause of action is to not do it. Her potentially not wanting something should be of greater concern to you, than your immediate desires. Because as a man, you have a responsibility to ensure that a woman isn't going to feel like she's being harassed by you. Baring in mind that women constantly have to deal with men approaching them in the street or calling out to them, do you really want to put your desires before the possibility of that happening?


What about as a human being? It sounds like you are framing this in a context of gender roles about what cis-men and cis-women are supposed to do. It sounds like you are saying it's the responsibility of cis-men to make cis-women feel comfortable. That sounds dangerously close to some patriarchal bullshit about the roles of the sexes. We have a responsibility to one another to be respectful, courteous, and polite to one another.



If you're in a specifically social situation, then making social contact makes more sense than just ambushing a woman as she is walking down the street minding her own business.


Life is a social situation. Who are you to judge what is an appropriate social context for people interacting with one another and what is not? You do understand there are socially appropriate ways to approach random people in public don't you? It seems that your claim is that all random unsolicited approaches are inappropriate. You haven't justified that case.

We already live in a pressure cooker society where people walk side by side and fail to interact. Big cities have turned people into a bunch of social stooges where they are only feet apart and don't know one another. What good is a socialist society where people don't talk to one another and interact? How can we ever hope to develop the underlying empathy for one another that such a society requires?



I would never stop someone in the street or approach someone without having some indication that they want to or if the context with which we are situation makes it appropriate.


That is your prerogative. Who are you to impose your insecurities about approaching random people in public on others?



The criteria for social interaction is indication that the person you want to interact with wants you to. That's the criteria. There's nothing vague or arbitrary about that.

Yes, but it is not vague or arbitrary because it is obviously contradictory. How do you get that indication unless you try to interact with them socially? Sometimes you might get it non-verbally, but many times not. People walking are often involved in their own thoughts and not even paying attention. Women are approached far more aggressively than men as a result of the patriarchy. I have been approached or witnessed an approach on a man by a woman only a handful of times.

It is understandable that since they are approached more aggressively, that would act to raise the threshold of what those individuals would normally choose to pay attention too. Perhaps I just like meeting new people, but how do you know if you'll like someone unless they actually try to interact with you?

I think the real problem isn't approaches, but these catcalls. As Rosa points out:


...
I don't think that any of these guys was thinking that this was the right way to have a conversation that would lead to sex. It was rather about power dynamics. And somehow all of this conversation in this thread is implying that you harass a woman only when you find her attractive and would want to get in her pants. Some guys would be honking at women to ridicule them or whatever. There is no pattern pointing at one direction.

Men know they will not bed these women. Essentially, they do it for the lulz. A power trip. The Feral Underclass, you are conflating approaches with catcalls.


Sometimes, it would depend on my mood and, I'm gonna be honest about it, the guy's look if I liked his "hello" face-to-face-approach or not. So not at all saying you're wrong, I just don't know a generalized solution to that.

There is no generalized solution. Being socially active requires a thick skin. Not all the people we interact with will like us. People just have to accept that. It just seems one sided because the patriarchy has ensured that women are shamed into not approaching for fear of appearing desperate.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm not going to address each point raised by the Feral Underclass and rednoise independently, but the crux of their argument is is that 'Your entitlement to put yourself in her space, uninvited, is not okay from the outset, regardless of whether it was going to turn out fine in the end.' In other words, it's harassment by default to initiate conversation. Of course, you don't actually believe that but that's the logical conclusion of this.

I'm trying to understand what harassment is because I don't want to harass people, but I notice that rednoise explains he thinks harassment is, but not why, so he's begging the question.

The Feral Underclass says, "When there is a possibility that someone is not going to give you consent, the most appropriate cause of action is to not do it." In other words, don't initiate conversation, ever. Asking for directions is inappropriate by this logic. Now, asking for directions is not a gendered action, but it's harassment nonetheless just a non-gendered, non-sexual harassment.

And the distinction that it's inappropriate to initiate conversation with a woman you find attractive in the workplace, on the streets, in public, at university, but not in a bar or club is not justified, and seems arbitrary to me. The argument rednoise gives is that "it happens in clubs" it "being a place that people go to meet other people." But generally, you go there to meet and hang out with friends, not to meet other people. It seems to me that an exception is forced to not rule out any interaction with strangers, but this exception is not solid.

The notion that it's inappropriate, harassment even, to "strike up a conversation, based on a feeling of romance, with women at work" sounds absurd to me. Or for that matter that I can't approach a fellow student and initiate a conversation.

Lastly, the Feral Underclass says the distinction lies in that "The criteria for social interaction is indication that the person you want to interact with wants you to." But this violates that "When there is a possibility that someone is not going to give you consent, the most appropriate cause of action is to not do it" because eye contact or a polite smile does not rule out the possibility for not giving consent for conversation.

[RedWorker]

I believe it's not harassment or sexist for a man to say "hi, how are you?" to a woman walking down the street. Of course it's being done for sexual reasons. Now, this approach to "dating" is completely tasteless. You don't make friends by saying such things to random busy people on the streets.

I do, however, believe that "have a good day!" or "bless you!", with obviously sexual reasons behind it, would be annoying and perhaps has some sort of sexism (and definitely a certain perception of the male-female interaction) behind it, and is in fact some form of chivalry and/or masked "compliment".

[Rosa Partizan]

At least in Germany, many couples get to know each other at work. I also once asked an IT guy at work if he wanted to meet me for coffee, he immediately said yes, and I know other people that did this similarly. I don't know why a club is necessarily a better location for hitting on somebody than the workplace or university or anything. There are often enough ladies that just go to clubs to dance with their ladyfriends and they don't wanna be bothered by some random guys. Additionally, I know MANY!! people that say "you don't meet the love of your life in a nightclub, you meet them at work, shopping, library, whatever". Actually, I don't know ANY couple that met in a bar or club, they all met in more casual situations. Don't know about that in GB or the US, but at least here, no one goes out thinking "well, maybe there's someone relevant in terms of a long-term thing".

[ColumnNo.4]

At least in Germany, many couples get to know each other at work. I also once asked an IT guy at work if he wanted to meet me for coffee, he immediately said yes, and I know other people that did this similarly. I don't know why a club is necessarily a better location for hitting on somebody than the workplace or university or anything. There are often enough ladies that just go to clubs to dance with their ladyfriends and they don't wanna be bothered by some random guys. Additionally, I know MANY!! people that say "you don't meet the love of your life in a nightclub, you meet them at work, shopping, library, whatever". Actually, I don't know ANY couple that met in a bar or club, they all met in more casual situations. Don't know about that in GB or the US, but at least here, no one goes out thinking "well, maybe there's someone relevant in terms of a long-term thing".

Here in the US a lot of people meet at church, which is why I've been perpetually single. As far as bars and clubs I think it depends on the type of bar and I've never met anyone of interest in a club.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Feral Underclass says, "When there is a possibility that someone is not going to give you consent, the most appropriate cause of action is to not do it." In other words, don't initiate conversation, ever.

:blink:

Wait, what? That is only "other words" for what I said if you're in the middle of a psychotic break.


And the distinction that it's inappropriate to initiate conversation with a woman you find attractive in the workplace, on the streets, in public, at university, but not in a bar or club is not justified, and seems arbitrary to me.

Ugh.

Those examples were given as examples of social context, not as some definitive list for where it's appropriate to speak to people. The point is that it's never appropriate to just initiate a conversation with someone just because you want to, without getting an indication if it's okay. It certainly isn't okay to just attempt to shout out and initiate when a woman is walking down the street in the opposite direction, which is what this conversation was about to begin with.


Lastly, the Feral Underclass says the distinction lies in that "The criteria for social interaction is indication that the person you want to interact with wants you to." But this violates that "When there is a possibility that someone is not going to give you consent, the most appropriate cause of action is to not do it" because eye contact or a polite smile does not rule out the possibility for not giving consent for conversation.

I can't speak for you, but I am capable of understanding the nuances of social interaction. I can tell the difference between a friendly smile and a smile that indicates sexual attraction. I can also understand the difference between someone catching my eye and someone looking at me because they think I'm hot. And if someone is going to go to the effort of getting my attention by staring at me and smiling coyly, then I think it's a safe bet that it's okay to speak to them...I don't understand why that is such a complicated process for you to grapple with.

But, whatever man, if you want to stop women walking down the street who are minding their own business just because you have an urge to fuck them, then carry on doing that, but in my view, that's not acceptable. Your sexual urges are not more important than a woman's right to walk down a street without some guy bothering her in some hope that she might want to fuck him.

Honestly, it's ridiculous.

[Achilles]

The only clear sexual harassment I saw was at 1:20, she clearly wasn't interested (or even acknowledging him).

Now, I approach women in public (cafes, bars, parks etc...) and yes my objective is 'sex'. I am not really ashamed of saying it. That is just the way it is. Off course, I wouldn't randomly comment "DAMN" to a women passing by, its just not my personality. It also makes these guys seem extremely insecure and desperate. My favorite was the obese guy saying "hey baby", lol.

[Decolonize The Left]

The only clear sexual harassment I saw was at 1:20, she clearly wasn't interested (or even acknowledging him).

Now, I approach women in public (cafes, bars, parks etc...) and yes my objective is 'sex'. I am not really ashamed of saying it. That is just the way it is. Off course, I wouldn't randomly comment "DAMN" to a women passing by, its just not my personality. It also makes these guys seem extremely insecure and desperate. My favorite was the obese guy saying "hey baby", lol.

Hmmm.... I'm going to issue you a verbal warning for sexism and bring this post to the attention of the BA.

Suffice to say that this forum does not condone or support casual sexism. Your post indicates that a) you engage in casual sexism quite regularly and b) that you think it's totally cool to do so. I can understand if you don't agree with my qualifying what you've described as casual sexism so I'll just say that on this forum it is. Please PM me or any other mod/admin if you'd like more explanation as to why this is the case.

[Teacher]

Striking up a conversation with someone is fine, but you don't do that by trying to stop them in the street as they walk past you having given no indication that they want you to.

So if the world worked how you wanted it to, the only time people would enter into a potentially romantic interaction is when the woman is the one to proactively initiate some kind of contact? I don't understand your perspective. If I see a person I find attractive and want to approach them, there is nothing at all nefarious about that.

Maybe I'm an unremarkable, average-looking guy who wouldn't otherwise attract the attention of the opposite sex, unless I show some confidence and approach someone? Maybe the woman would be interested in meeting someone, but is too shy to approach someone herself?

I also don't understand your point about the "social context" of the location. I'm sure many relationships began with two people who met at a cafeteria or a bus stop or a sidewalk. Some women don't enjoy going to your list of socially acceptable places to approach a woman. Also, many women go to bars/clubs just to hang out with their friends and not to meet new people. So maybe men should be barred from approaching women in bars, too. I think this gets silly pretty quickly.

[#FF0000]

I find that very often when talking about things like harassment, what I actually end up doing is explaining basic social norms in American cultures.

You don't expect someone to say "have a good day" to you while they are walking past you on a busy street. It just isn't something that is done unless they are trying to get money from you or they're about to do something hella weird that you don't want any part of. And the entire "well what about starting a conversation" thing is absurd in this context because it's ridiculous to assume someone walking down a busy street in a major city, especially if they're walking in the opposite direction as you, wants to stop and chat.

I've spent a lot of time walking around busy streets as a dude and I've never had other dudes say hello to me. Why is that, do you think?

[Loony Le Fist]

On a side note, lemme show (https://archive.today/69ZAS) you why I'm so glad I left the PUA community before it got to this point...

Absolutely disgusting. I never did this shit, nor would I ever do it. This is RSDs newest top instructor, BTW. :mad:

[The Feral Underclass]

So if the world worked how you wanted it to, the only time people would enter into a potentially romantic interaction is when the woman is the one to proactively initiate some kind of contact?

No.


I don't understand your perspective.

Because you haven't bothered to read all of the posts I made in this thread.


If I see a person I find attractive and want to approach them, there is nothing at all nefarious about that.

That's because you view your immediate sexual desires as more important than the woman feeling safe and comfortable.


Maybe I'm an unremarkable, average-looking guy who wouldn't otherwise attract the attention of the opposite sex, unless I show some confidence and approach someone? Maybe the woman would be interested in meeting someone, but is too shy to approach someone herself?

Yes, that's certainly a predicament. I don't see how it changes the basic point I'm making.


I also don't understand your point about the "social context" of the location. I'm sure many relationships began with two people who met at a cafeteria or a bus stop or a sidewalk. Some women don't enjoy going to your list of socially acceptable places to approach a woman. Also, many women go to bars/clubs just to hang out with their friends and not to meet new people.

As I already stated several times, it's not a "list" of acceptable places where men can talk to women. The point I was making was that there are situations where attaining consent to initiate conversations is easier. Of course, consent has to be your priority concern, which clearly for you, it isn't.


So maybe men should be barred from approaching women in bars, too. I think this gets silly pretty quickly.

All I have suggested is that men take more responsibility to ensure their actions are less invasive and more consensual and respectful. If you think that's silly or somehow prohibitive, then perhaps you need reassess why that it is.

[Quail]

This thread has turned out pretty much exactly as expected. I don't really understand why whenever the topic of harassment comes up, people start to get upset about never being able to approach or talk to women ever because talking to women they don't know is always harassment, plain and simple.

No, striking up conversation with women you don't know isn't necessarily harassment, and also no, your attractiveness doesn't determine whether or not you are harassing someone.

There is a such an obvious difference between catcalling and talking to women you don't know in an appropriate social setting. The former isn't done with the intentions of actually getting to know the woman and is more about asserting power than anything else. A lot of harassment doesn't even allow for a conversation to follow (e.g. honking, yelling out of a car window, yelling from across the street) and other forms of harassment are clearly meant to put a woman in her place as a sex object (e.g. groping, lewd comments).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This thread is an example of why feminism needs to be a thing.

[Loony Le Fist]

There is a such an obvious difference between catcalling and talking to women you don't know in an appropriate social setting. The former isn't done with the intentions of actually getting to know the woman and is more about asserting power than anything else. A lot of harassment doesn't even allow for a conversation to follow (e.g. honking, yelling out of a car window, yelling from across the street) and other forms of harassment are clearly meant to put a woman in her place as a sex object (e.g. groping, lewd comments).

Objectification is an impediment to conversation and social interaction. If only more men understood that feminists are their allies, not their adversaries.

[Loony Le Fist]

This thread is an example of why feminism needs to be a thing.

Absolutely. It makes me furious that we live in a society where women feel afraid to interact with men for fear of being raped. How ridiculous is that?

What are men afraid of? Rejection?

What a joke.

Women are so much stronger than men. I'm sure women wish their only fear was social rejection.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What are men afraid of? Rejection?
I think the men who do things like this just get off on terrorizing women. It's all about exercising power over women in the public sphere.

[Loony Le Fist]

I think the men who do things like this just get off on terrorizing women. It's all about exercising power over women in the public sphere.

Like the one's that catcall like in that video? Hell yes. Both Rosa and Quail have also made that same point.