Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You seem to think we are complaining about "feeling harassed", and not actually being harassed . We're not. We're saying that being out in public does not give you the right to assume we are available to you, in any way,**unless we indicate we are**.
I didn't expect to have to tell you this. It has nothing to do with how attractive the man is. Or where he is or what he is doing. An UNWANTED sexual advance is an UNWANTED sexual advance*.
Obviously I do not think your indication of availability constitutes harassment, because the offer is made with good intentions for mutual benefit. Personally I am of the opinion that it is just an unwanted sexual advance you are making that is rebuffed and you can move on to other topics or exit the conversation, but apparently some people disagree.
* Men do have standards, lower generally.
-
Megan,
If you are still reading this, yes. Its harassment, it is a shit thing to happen. No denying.
I didn't reply, because I am arguing against the "all harasment requires is a harasser" meme. And any personal recollection I might dwell on to justify my argument would portray how my actions have contributed to the harassment of a woman immediately colouring me as a harassing "dumbfuck arsehole" according to the flawed reasoning of the opposing position, so decreasing civil debate. I kept it intellectual.
My position is that a person can be harassed in 2 ways:
- because they are subject to protracted and unwanted demand from one person or group acting in concert, like you have been.
- because they are subject to protracted and unwanted demand by several people or groups acting independently, even though the harassing parties have no intention to harass.I reckon that any attractive female who goes to a singles bar with the intention of having a good time with friends is going to be subjected to a high number of unwanted sexual advances of varying unsophistication (irrespective of whatever she wears) possibly causing her to become harassed. Yes, I have participated in harassing women in the second manner. No, I have never harassed anyone using the first.
-
A nice read on 1940 style flirtation, from period Esquire.
-
So, a bar is a place to be okay to grope and harass and bother a woman after she has made it clear that she's not interested?
No.
It is a bar, so lets assume there is more than one guy. She makes it clear to the first guy, 2nd guy, 3rd, 4th...18th...that she is just out for a good fun night with friends, she tells every guy to go away and each guy complies.
According to everybodyelses working definition of harrasment she is catergorically NOT being harrassed. She makes it clear she is not interested and the guy leaves, so therefore no harrasment.
I however think that after say the 17th proposition based on the intrinsic appeal of blowing a drunk stranger she might be feeling harrassed. Yet I (agreeing with everybodyelse) also think that no harrassment has occured.
-
Stephen,
I am a centrist swing voter and like politics. Political sites where arguments are conducted are left (maximising the good) or right (maximising freedom). And being a centrist they both sound sort of good.
For example, I am tempted to infer that you believe the unhappiness of harrassed female bar patrons is more than offset by the happiness of boorish male ones.
More like, I believe that boorish behaviour by male and female patrons in a bar is mostly in the pursuit of happiness and in the wish to provide some happiness to another. If into this context someone enters (and like 3410 portrays it is almost always a woman) who holds boorish sexual advances to be harrassing she will be harrassed, by people who have no intention to harrass her. So yes her unhappiness is more than offset by people who have happily congregated in the bar for the purpose of boorish sexual pursuit.
I think that places exist where people can engage in a consensual activity even if it fails to meet the standards of proper behaviour.
-
You seem to think that no one would ever fuck if someone wasn't acting like a douchebag to someone else. Believe me: I have bonked some people, and they didn't have to harass me to get me to do it. That's what 'active consent' means.
No. I think that even "douchebags" are capable of making each other happy and that this happiness should not be denied them on the basis of any qualitative judgement I have about their actions.
I think that people operate to differing standards of what constitutes proper behaviour and that your standard likely falls foul of someones norms of moral & proper behavour. However your standard is a good deal north of where I think society should draw the line - that we do not harm or hinder or coerce, beyond that go for it. It is an admittedly low standard, set low so that it maximises the amount of people who can attain happiness.
-
Rich - stay away from protest marches.
Stephen - don't threaten people.
-
Let me introduce ambiguity not found in childrens books:
1. People of all sexes and orientations meet in public places and engage in a persistant, aggressive pursuit of consensual sex and then they fuck and they are happy. Hooray for people fucking?
2. People of all sexes and orientations meet in public places and engage in a persistant, aggressive pursuit of consensual sex and then they don't fuck and one party is unhappy. BOOO for harrasment?
I contend that a significant number of people in bars at 3 am are by and large trying to create happiness through enacting scenario 1. And that their efforts might unfortunately result in scenario 2.
-
I used 'early 60s' to describe what you were saying because your attitude perfectly encapsulates what was happening during that period; the beginning of the sexual revolution was meant to be 'freeing' for women, but instead they were often insulted for not being 'free' enough (which basically just meant they wouldn't put out for everyone who asked. How astounding).
So you've had almost 50 years to accept the concept. All I am trying to say is that behaviour made famous in the 60s still occurs and it is common for people to meet in public spaces for the purposes of carrying it out (try to figure out which spaces). If it offends you or you find it insulting, so be it.
I'm not sure how many times we can tell you what happens to women in public, and then have you tell us we're imagining it, or brought it on ourselves, or are prudes, or are overreacting, or *whatever*, Angus. Are you ever going to actually hear us, or do we give up now?
Oh no, I totally believe you. Its not that I am even unsympathetic, it is a not nice feeling to be denigrated.
Unfortunately though the right not to be offended does not and should not exist, because it is trumped thoroughly by the right of people to freely express themselves.
-
Deborah
If you are asked by the 5th or 6th or 17th guy, are you being harrassed? Is he harrassing? I'd suggest that you are being harrassed and he is not harrassing.
Answering no to "you wanna fuck?" just means you don't wanna fuck, this doesn't neccessarily exhaust the avenues of male conversation (close, but not quite). Subsquent conversation if it does wander about a bit might end up in the vicinity of sexual proposition, what sort of vicinity is harrasment?