Sexy street harassment

LittleFox

bb1234567 wrote: »

Am I the only one that rarely if ever sees this happen in Ireland ? I'm guessing it's mostly an American thing but I've never seen a girl get a cat call from a randomer on the street here. I have some very pretty female friends and whenever I go into town with them they don't get cat calls or winks or whistles and a random guy would never just come up to her and chat her up .
The only times I see things like the above happen are in temple bar after 10 pm when everyone's drunk.

Maybe America is just a way sleezier place than Ireland ?

The reason you don't see it is because the sad pathetic people who engage in such activities would rarely do it to a woman in a group or with a man. They do it the majority of the time to a woman on their own as they feel secure in the fact the woman appears vulnerable and likely not to call them out on the crap they are saying

kiffer

bb1234567 wrote: »

Am I the only one that rarely if ever sees this happen in Ireland ? I'm guessing it's mostly an American thing but I've never seen a girl get a cat call from a randomer on the street here. I have some very pretty female friends and whenever I go into town with them they don't get cat calls or winks or whistles and a random guy would never just come up to her and chat her up .
The only times I see things like the above happen are in temple bar after 10 pm when everyone's drunk.

Maybe America is just a way sleezier place than Ireland ?

When you are out with them they are not alone are they. You are chaperoning them.
When you are out and about you don't see it happen to women because you aren't watching for it, aren't near enough when it happens.
I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to say it happens less here, but less is not nothing.

I'm a six foot tall man, and I look a bit crazy.
I get hassel and the odd commen from the odd teenager and a bit from random scumbags. Not much, the odd insult, the odd "Here mister, yeh dropped sumtin, hahahaha he looked", and the ubiquitous beggers, chuggers and people bumming smokes.
If I get hassel then I don't doubt that women get hassel.
It likely to be more than I get, and will definitely have a sexual component.

UCDVet

kiffer wrote: »

I agree that often we see people attributing intentions to people that don't necessarily apply.
But that doesn't mean that it isn't harassment.
For example, a number of people have been saying that the men in the video were motivated by an intention to make the woman uncomfortable.
I don't think this is true, and I see some real leaps of logic with this intention falicey...
unrelated example, get delayed going to a job interview, get home after the interview, asked how it went say "not great, I was delayed and was late so I got a bit flustered..." get iinterrupted "ah, you didn't really want the job so you self sabotaged".
"actually there was a 5 car pile up on the motorway, when I left the house I was 30 minutes earlier than I needed to be".

Where was I?
Look a stalkers intention may be to learn about you and keep you safe and have you realise that they love you and that one day you will fall in love with them... not to scare the **** out of you and make your life a lving hell... but if they are in your garden at five am stealing laundry you accidentally left out over night then their intentions mean **** all.

Five minutes of walking lock step with someone you just failed to hit on, who clearly had no interest in talking is creepy. But 5 minutes makes it on going and moves it from an annoyinf approach into clearly harassment.

I'm pretty awkward, and terrible at chatting up women, and I've ended up in the sort of "how do I leave and save face" type situation... but I don't believe someone who can cold approach someone with a don't talk to me look on her face wouldn't just go "ooops" and walk off. Or walk faster. Or walk slower.
I think he's twigged something odd is going on. Maybe he spotted the camera, or just that she isn't reacting at all to anyone and he wants to see how it pans out.
Bo matter what the reason the lock step is not just awkwardness.

Pick a random man, say "Hi", and fall into step with him.
In fact im going to assume there are prank videos of this and I'll go look for some.

I'm not disagreeing really - but I wanted to say that I wouldn't consider what he did a failed attempt at hitting on her. Maybe I'm old fashioned or naive, but from my perspective, if you speak to someone and they fail to acknowledge you....that means they didn't hear you.

No response is not the same as a rejection.

UCDVet

LittleFox wrote: »

The reason you don't see it is because the sad pathetic people who engage in such activities would rarely do it to a woman in a group or with a man. They do it the majority of the time to a woman on their own as they feel secure in the fact the woman appears vulnerable and likely not to call them out on the crap they are saying

Maybe we're picturing very different scenarios but, surely, it is not just sad and pathetic men who would go and '....just come up to her and chat her up'?

I'm not suggesting it's good to harass women, but certainly walking up to a girl you fancy and chatting her up should be an acceptable thing that people do in public, is it not?

That's how I met my wife....so I'm always a little confused when I hear people describe what I did as harassment or sexual harassment. Do people not talk to each other anymore?

LittleFox

UCDVet wrote: »

Maybe we're picturing very different scenarios but, surely, it is not just sad and pathetic men who would go and '....just come up to her and chat her up'?

I'm not suggesting it's good to harass women, but certainly walking up to a girl you fancy and chatting her up should be an acceptable thing that people do in public, is it not?

That's how I met my wife....so I'm always a little confused when I hear people describe what I did as harassment or sexual harassment. Do people not talk to each other anymore?

It's not the situation where a woman is browsing in a shop or waiting in a bus and someone says hi. It's when you are quite purposefully walking somewhere head down and someone yells hi at you or nice tits or all the other crap I've heard over the years. Being poked on the bus to take out your headphones. Having the 65 year old man who you serve in the local shop come in one day without his wife and grandkids and hand you a note asking for your number. Being yelled at on the bus for not wanting to engage in conversation after a long day in work. Being called a stuck up bitch. Unfortunately anytime I have replied to the randomer saying hi it has ended with comments on my body, or being groped and ive being followed off the bus on more than one occasion. It is at the stage now where I keep my eyes down headphones in and speed walk everywhere to avoid strangers passing comment .

One eyed Jack

UCDVet wrote: »

Maybe we're picturing very different scenarios but, surely, it is not just sad and pathetic men who would go and '....just come up to her and chat her up'?

I'm not suggesting it's good to harass women, but certainly walking up to a girl you fancy and chatting her up should be an acceptable thing that people do in public, is it not?

That's how I met my wife....so I'm always a little confused when I hear people describe what I did as harassment or sexual harassment. Do people not talk to each other anymore?

Did anyone ever tell you not to talk to strangers for your own safety? The same principle applies when you're an adult.

You're trying desperately to defend a guy who any reasonable person can see went out of his way to intimidate the girl while he was unaware he was being filmed.

Do you imagine he'd have exhibited the same behaviour if he were aware he was being filmed?

It's like I said earlier - there was no need for this woman to risk putting herself in danger to make a point about antisocial behaviour. Everyone is aware that it is an issue, but the resources simply don't exist to be able to call on the authorities to prevent the behaviour and enforce the law.

We already have laws against harassment and antisocial behaviour, I personally can't see any necessity to amend those laws to include the specific offence of... well, would anyone care to take a stab at the spectrum of behaviours that could be covered?

Would it specifically be the offence of street calling and intimidating behaviour perpetrated by men against women?

I'd love to hear the logistics and costs involved in implementing measures to enforce this new law and how it's proponents propose it should be financed.

UCDVet

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Did anyone ever tell you not to talk to strangers for your own safety? The same principle applies when you're an adult.

You're trying desperately to defend a guy who any reasonable person can see went out of his way to intimidate the girl while he was unaware he was being filmed.

Do you imagine he'd have exhibited the same behaviour if he were aware he was being filmed?

It's like I said earlier - there was no need for this woman to risk putting herself in danger to make a point about antisocial behaviour. Everyone is aware that it is an issue, but the resources simply don't exist to be able to call on the authorities to prevent the behaviour and enforce the law.

We already have laws against harassment and antisocial behaviour, I personally can't see any necessity to amend those laws to include the specific offence of... well, would anyone care to take a stab at the spectrum of behaviours that could be covered?

Would it specifically be the offence of street calling and intimidating behaviour perpetrated by men against women?

I'd love to hear the logistics and costs involved in implementing measures to enforce this new law and how it's proponents propose it should be financed.

I was told not to speak to strangers *as a child*. As a child, I wouldn't be able to recognize dangerous people. I can only hope you aren't implying that grown women should be treated like children?

Still, there is no point in us conversing; by your definition I'm clearly an unreasonable person. I don't see any reason to believe he was attempting to intimidate her by saying:

Hello good morning. god bless you have a good day alright

And matching his pace to hers for five minutes of walking down a public street.

Intimidation is a pretty serious thing.

Intimidation is intentional behavior that "would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm

FEAR OF INJURY OR HARM.
ordinary sensibilities.

Would someone of ordinary sensibilities FEAR INJURY OR HARM, from a man saying 'Hello good morning. god bless you have a good day alright' and continuing to walk in the same direction he was already going....but at a slightly modified pace?

I don't think so.

Did the camera man call the police for fear of injury or harm? No....did the lady walking start to run for fear of injury or harm? Would we expect a person of ordinary sensibilities to run or call for help in that situation? If not, it's probably not intimidation.

You are saying that ANY REASONABLE person would know that, by saying what he said, and by matching pace, he was intentionally communicating an intent to injure or harm the girl.

I'm clearly not a reasonable person then.

UCDVet

LittleFox wrote: »

It's not the situation where a woman is browsing in a shop or waiting in a bus and someone says hi. It's when you are quite purposefully walking somewhere head down and someone yells hi at you or nice tits or all the other crap I've heard over the years. Being poked on the bus to take out your headphones. Having the 65 year old man who you serve in the local shop come in one day without his wife and grandkids and hand you a note asking for your number. Being yelled at on the bus for not wanting to engage in conversation after a long day in work. Being called a stuck up bitch. Unfortunately anytime I have replied to the randomer saying hi it has ended with comments on my body, or being groped and ive being followed off the bus on more than one occasion. It is at the stage now where I keep my eyes down headphones in and speed walk everywhere to avoid strangers passing comment .

I feel like most of the disagreement in this thread is just people talking about different things.

Someone said only pathetic men would go and chat up a woman walking alone. And I said, surely, that's not correct - I met my wife doing exactly that.

And now you are giving all these examples of *OTHER THINGS* that are not appropriate. Implying that I'm supporting them. But I'm not supporting any of them.

'Being yelled at on the bus for not wanting to engage in conversation' - I'm not saying that is okay.
'Being called a stuck up bitch' - I'm not saying that is okay'
'or being groped' - I'm certainly not saying that is okay'

But this girl, walking down the street....she wasn't "head down" - she was looking straight ahead. And she's just walking, I don't see any 'purpose' about it, I can't tell if she's late for a meeting or if she's got 10 spare hours to kill. Saying 'Hello' certainly SHOULDN'T be considered harassment. Those *other* things you've mention, I'm not saying those things are okay. I'm JUST saying, saying 'Hey, what's up?' to a girl should not be a crime. Saying 'Hey, what's up?' to a guy should not be a crime.

LittleFox

UCDVet wrote: »

I feel like most of the disagreement in this thread is just people talking about different things.

Someone said only pathetic men would go and chat up a woman walking alone. And I said, surely, that's not correct - I met my wife doing exactly that.

And now you are giving all these examples of *OTHER THINGS* that are not appropriate. Implying that I'm supporting them. But I'm not supporting any of them.

'Being yelled at on the bus for not wanting to engage in conversation' - I'm not saying that is okay.
'Being called a stuck up bitch' - I'm not saying that is okay'
'or being groped' - I'm certainly not saying that is okay'

But this girl, walking down the street....she wasn't "head down" - she was looking straight ahead. And she's just walking, I don't see any 'purpose' about it, I can't tell if she's late for a meeting or if she's got 10 spare hours to kill. Saying 'Hello' certainly SHOULDN'T be considered harassment. Those *other* things you've mention, I'm not saying those things are okay. I'm JUST saying, saying 'Hey, what's up?' to a girl should not be a crime. Saying 'Hey, what's up?' to a guy should not be a crime.

But the point I'm making is all the groping yelling following came from people saying hi to strangers when I replied I got harassed, when I don't reply I get harassed. The point being made is people get their back up if they don't get the response they desire. Someone walking down the street usually is going somewhere. browsing in a shop or market sitting in a park or bar you are relaxed and probably more open to engaging with someone. Sure say hi as you walk by someone but don't expect them to stop and chat

UCDVet

LittleFox wrote: »

But the point I'm making is all the groping yelling following came from people saying hi to strangers when I replied I got harassed, when I don't reply I get harassed. The point being made is people get their back up if they don't get the response they desire. Someone walking down the street usually is going somewhere. browsing in a shop or market sitting in a park or bar you are relaxed and probably more open to engaging with someone. Sure say hi as you walk by someone but don't expect them to stop and chat

Agreed 100%

One eyed Jack

UCDVet wrote: »

I was told not to speak to strangers *as a child*. As a child, I wouldn't be able to recognize dangerous people. I can only hope you aren't implying that grown women should be treated like children?


Still, there is no point in us conversing; by your definition I'm clearly an unreasonable person. I don't see any reason to believe he was attempting to intimidate her by saying:


And matching his pace to hers for five minutes of walking down a public street.

Intimidation is a pretty serious thing.


FEAR OF INJURY OR HARM.
ordinary sensibilities.

Would someone of ordinary sensibilities FEAR INJURY OR HARM, from a man saying 'Hello good morning. god bless you have a good day alright' and continuing to walk in the same direction he was already going....but at a slightly modified pace?

I don't think so.

Did the camera man call the police for fear of injury or harm? No....did the lady walking start to run for fear of injury or harm? Would we expect a person of ordinary sensibilities to run or call for help in that situation? If not, it's probably not intimidation.

You are saying that ANY REASONABLE person would know that, by saying what he said, and by matching pace, he was intentionally communicating an intent to injure or harm the girl.

I'm clearly not a reasonable person then.

Ahh, we're actually not that dissimilar in our views really, but the way you're putting your views across is exactly the backlash and trivialising the issue I referred to earlier. It's understandable, but is as extreme a reaction to the behaviour as those that would indeed quite rightly as you point out, "infantilise" women and seek to make them out to be perpetual victims. Any woman I know would be horrified by the suggestion that she needs to be minded like a child, chaperoned like she's some damsel in distress that can't take care of herself without a big strong man by her side to intimidate her intimidators.

I still do believe however that the man in the video didn't particularly care about the effect his behaviour would have on the woman, because experience tells me that he's only thinking about himself and his rights. He isn't doing anything illegal by the letter of the law, but is his behaviour socially acceptable?

That's the point of view we may disagree over, and it's perfectly understandable why you would claim his behaviour is reasonable while I would claim it isn't - our opinions differ because our experiences differ, and therefore our sense of the level of intimidation is going to differ.

Low level intimidation is one of those things that's impossible to quantify as it's inevitably going to vary from person to person and is completely dependent upon their perception, that's why we can only ever have laws like harassment that imply a consistent pattern of behaviour as opposed to one off incidents perpetrated upon us by complete strangers.

I can't see anyone supporting the suggestion that a woman should be charged with the same crime if man were to feel intimidated by her, and by that same token, women don't need to be encouraged to feel like victims-in-waiting either.

This whole stunt orchestrated by some misguided social justice warriors is simply an insult to women.

Heisenberg88

Are people really falling for this video? Its the same crap as the Kony video!

They want you to donate to a bull crap charity to rip you off the same as the Kony one! And look what happened there!

Can people not see this!! I give up on the human race. Don't believe everything you see on the internet.

Cathy.C

LittleFox wrote: »

The reason you don't see it is because the sad pathetic people who engage in such activities would rarely do it to a woman in a group or with a man.

Videos posted have shown us quite clearly that catcalling is something which both sexes partake in and so unsure as to why you seem to speaking in a way which would suggest that is only men.

They do it the majority of the time to a woman on their own as they feel secure in the fact the woman appears vulnerable and likely not to call them out on the crap they are saying

This seems like quite an odd opinion and one which has been repeated throughout the thread. I would be of the opinion that guys have only ever directed similar comments my way when I'm alone, and at other women when they're alone, as if a man is with us as we walk along, then the chances are that the man is our boyfriend.

Of course, lumping men (or women) who approach the opposite sex in street asking them out or pay them compliments, in with those that just hurl abuse at them either from the other side of the street, or from a moving car isn't really all that fair tbh. The latter are only have nefarious reasons for doing so, while the former genuinely believe that they might get lucky. I have met one or two lads that I went on to have relationships with that way in fact and I doubt I'm alone.

This is why I feel the video is seriously flawed and that they shot themselves in the foot as they had a chance to genuinely highlight street harassment and had they just included the more sinister comments from the men that they encountered, then they wouldn't have given their detractors such an easy way of dismissing their objections, which is just what I feel they have done by including the more innocent comments.

As for the young gentleman that decided to tag along, as I posted already..

Cathy.C wrote: »

Is it just me, or did anyone else get the distinct impression that many of the men knew that this girl was being filmed? Most seem to give her quite quizzical looks as they say what they did. It was if to say 'why is this woman being filmed'. We are also told they walked around for ten hours. Well, if you walk around a small part of New York for ten hours, people will notice you. They will wonder to themselves why is that girl with a determined emotionless expression on her face walking around in circles all day, and always right behind that same guy carrying that odd looking backpack.

These earlier comments I made were really concerning this guy as when I watched the video a few days ago, to me it seemed as if he thought he was trying to be part of something. If you watch the clip from where he is first seen on the video.. 45 seconds or so in.. and then pause it right as he enters the camera frame, you will see that he is actually pointing his phone at the guy recording, or so it appears, and then quickly puts it away and says "God bless you, have a good day" and then both walk past him. Then suddenly there is an edit in the video and we now see that this guy is now back walking alongside her. This seems odd to me as why would he say 'have a good day' to her and then decide to run and catch up with her again and start walking alongside her again for four minutes? And if that did happen, why is that not included as surely someone running after someone that they had just said 'have a good day to' would be clear proof that he was harassing her.

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

Seems suspicious to me and if you watch the video closely (it's hard to see as his face is pixelated) you will notice that the guy glances at her face and then in the direction of the back pack a couple of times at least, as if he is wondering who the hell she is and why she is being filmed. It's just a guess, but I think that the guy knew well that she was being recorded and wanted to try and get in on the action and that the two chunks of footage featuring him were in reverse order. It's not as if they were all that covert anyway, as at the very start of the video, we see her on the street openly adjusting the camera in the backpack.

Heisenberg88

Cathy.C wrote: »

Seems suspicious to me and if you watch the video closely (it's hard to see as his face is pixelated) you will notice that the guy glances at her face and then in the direction of the back pack a couple of times at least, as if he is wondering who the hell she is and why she is being filmed. It's just a guess, but I think that the guy knew well that she was being recorded and wanted to try and get in on the action and that the two chunks of footage featuring him were in reverse order. It's not as if they were all that covert anyway, as at the very start of the video, we see her on the street openly adjusting the camera in the backpack.

Yes it is a scam, same as the Kony video. They want you to donate to a bull crap charity so they can make money. Don't know how people can't see this!

LittleFox

Cathy.C wrote: »

Videos posted have shown us quite clearly that catcalling is something which both sexes partake in and so unsure as to why you seem to speaking in a way which would suggest that is only men.
Apologies I did say the people not men and should have followed with shout at individuals on their own rather than in groups or with individuals of the opposite sex.


This seems like quite an odd opinion and one which has been repeated throughout the thread. I would be of the opinion that guys have only ever directed similar comments my way when I'm alone, and at other women when they're alone, as if a man is with us as we walk along, then the chances are that the man is our boyfriend.

Of course, lumping men (or women) who approach the opposite sex in street asking them out or pay them compliments, in with those that just hurl abuse at them either from the other side of the street, or from a moving car isn't really all that fair tbh. The latter are only have nefarious reasons for doing so, while the former genuinely believe that they might get lucky. I have met one or two lads that I went on to have relationships with that way in fact and I doubt I'm alone.


I have had guys wait till my date goes to the bathroom on nights out or to the bar to pass comment on the way I look. So some people just have no respect as has been stated by others on the thread e.g. not taking no for an answer when someone says they don't want a drink. Fine if you want to engage with someone say hi but don't say hi beautiful or good looking it's cringey and completely off putting and proves you have an obvious agenda from the get go

Polynesian Starmap

LittleFox wrote: »

Cathy.C wrote: »

Videos posted have shown us quite clearly that catcalling is something which both sexes partake in and so unsure as to why you seem to speaking in a way which would suggest that is only men.
Apologies I did say the people not men and should have followed with shout at individuals on their own rather than in groups or with individuals of the opposite sex.


This seems like quite an odd opinion and one which has been repeated throughout the thread. I would be of the opinion that guys have only ever directed similar comments my way when I'm alone, and at other women when they're alone, as if a man is with us as we walk along, then the chances are that the man is our boyfriend.

Of course, lumping men (or women) who approach the opposite sex in street asking them out or pay them compliments, in with those that just hurl abuse at them either from the other side of the street, or from a moving car isn't really all that fair tbh. The latter are only have nefarious reasons for doing so, while the former genuinely believe that they might get lucky. I have met one or two lads that I went on to have relationships with that way in fact and I doubt I'm alone.


I have had guys wait till my date goes to the bathroom on nights out or to the bar to pass comment on the way I look. So some people just have no respect as has been stated by others on the thread e.g. not taking no for an answer when someone says they don't want a drink. Fine if you want to engage with someone say hi but don't say hi beautiful or good looking it's cringey and completely off putting and proves you have an obvious agenda from the get go

What agenda are you referring to?

LittleFox

Polynesian Starmap wrote: »

LittleFox wrote: »

What agenda are you referring to?

Any guy I've met and my friends who has opened with hi gorgeous beautiful babe etc has been looking for an easy shag and nothing more. That is their agenda to find someone to warm their bed. I've found someone who is willing to engage say hi how's your night going, what do you think of blah blah blah generally makes you feel that you are more than a body for them to play with and treats you as more than that. This has been my experience and ive learnt from it

Polynesian Starmap

LittleFox wrote: »

Polynesian Starmap wrote: »

Any guy I've met and my friends who has opened with hi gorgeous beautiful babe etc has been looking for an easy shag and nothing more. That is their agenda to find someone to warm their bed. I've found someone who is willing to engage say hi how's your night going, what do you think of blah blah blah generally makes you feel that you are more than a body for them to play with and treats you as more than that. This has been my experience and ive learnt from it

They are entitled to look for women for an easy shag, saying "hey gorgeous" won't yield much success I'd imagine.

smurgen

LittleFox wrote: »

Polynesian Starmap wrote: »

Any guy I've met and my friends who has opened with hi gorgeous beautiful babe etc has been looking for an easy shag and nothing more. That is their agenda to find someone to warm their bed. I've found someone who is willing to engage say hi how's your night going, what do you think of blah blah blah generally makes you feel that you are more than a body for them to play with and treats you as more than that. This has been my experience and ive learnt from it

You mean men have wanted to have sex with women ?! My God , what is the world coming to.

LittleFox

Polynesian Starmap wrote: »

LittleFox wrote: »

They are entitled to look for women for an easy shag, saying "hey gorgeous" won't yield much success I'd imagine.

Oh god yeah perfectly entitled to each their own just one night stands aren't my thing so if someone opens with a line like that I automatically shut down as I think yep just looking for a one nighter and that's not what I'm looking for

UCDVet

LittleFox wrote: »

They are entitled to look for women for an easy shag, saying "hey gorgeous" won't yield much success I'd imagine.

I think it's a lot like spam on the internet. It has a low success rate, but it's cheap and easy to send to a lot of people.

If you have no shame and don't mind rejection - it's easy to go up to 10 cute girls a day and say, 'Hey sexy!' or 'Hey gorgeous'. It's free, takes virtually no effort, and while 90%, 95% or even 99% of women won't take kindly too it - if 1% likes it and leads into a conversation/phone number exchange/date - well, that guy would end up with more dates than he could handle.

(To be clear - I'm *not* advocating such an approach.)

Calibos

http://youtu.be/WaNtcEMXR5Y?t=19m15s

nokia69

bb1234567

UCDVet wrote: »

Maybe we're picturing very different scenarios but, surely, it is not just sad and pathetic men who would go and '....just come up to her and chat her up'?

I'm not suggesting it's good to harass women, but certainly walking up to a girl you fancy and chatting her up should be an acceptable thing that people do in public, is it not?

That's how I met my wife....so I'm always a little confused when I hear people describe what I did as harassment or sexual harassment. Do people not talk to each other anymore?

I think chatting up should be done in places such as pubs and bars where a woman is ready and prepared to be chatted up. She should be able to go about her daily life outside of a night out without men hitting on her. I know a simple chat up is harmless but Im sure if it happens very regularly to a woman, and the advances are coming from men she would definitely not be interested in, it can be a bit tedious and tiring.

RobYourBuilder

Wibbs wrote: »

A bloke has to generally stand out in some way to be targeted by your mouthbreathing scum, women just have to be women.

I currently sport a "Freddie Ljungberg style" haircut. Lucky that I work in an unorthodox job with a lunatic for a gaffer. I know my personal experiences are outside the norm. That said, if a "normal" looking dude walked through xxxxxx gardens in the inner city, Jobstown, Harelawn, Bawnogue, Neilstown or any of the other sh*tholes in West Dublin. Then they would be picked on too. Just as badly as any girl. The only difference being, they won't get violent with a girl.

It's street harassment that's the problem. And it's not only dudes that partake in it.

gozunda

nokia69 wrote: »

Has anyone made a serious stand here that on street Harrasment does not happen to men?

The above video shows some examples of similar type behaviour - however it is practically impossible to contrast the two videos as the man in this video is displaying very different body language whilst out and about in contrast to the OPs video

The man appears to be out for a stroll as opposed to the the woman in the first video who it would appear was walking determinedly and not strolling along

In this video the guy appears to be physically strong / tall / into body building This obviously is no excuse for any such behaviour but I note that this has been levied a number of times in this post as appearance as a reason 'why' women may get targeted on the street

At no point does the guy appear to be uncomfortable with the Harrasment videod. Maybe he was but it really doesn't come across.

Whatever the contrast and considering the video was filmed in an attempt to show that hassement happens to men as well, It is obvious that two wrongs don't anything right. The discussion here is the often threatening nature of sexual haressment as experienced by woman alone in a street environment. From this thread it is clear that many women feel both threatened and uncomfortable at the behaviour of strangers pestering them and making unwanted sexual advances. For the Naysayers it may be at least logical to take heed of what has been said by many woman in relation to such behaviour.

For anyone in any doubt I would suggest anyone engaging in such behaviour put a member of their family in the place of the woman in the video and think twice before 'coming on to' a random stranger in the street. There is a current Ad campaign on the radio at the moment that asks men to 'Man up' in relation to domestic violence. This is something I believe that can also be brought up in relation to on street Harrasment

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

For anyone in any doubt I would suggest anyone engaging in such behaviour put a member of their family in the place of the woman in the video and think twice before 'coming on to' a random stranger in the street.

The only thing I'm actually in doubt about is people calling for it to be made a criminal offence that someone could be prosecuted for. I personally don't think it should be. It's annoying, certainly, but criminal? Hardly.

There is a current Ad campaign on the radio at the moment that asks men to 'Man up' in relation to domestic violence. This is something I believe that can also be brought up in relation to on street Harrasment

That particular campaign was as badly thought out as the video in the original post, notwithstanding the fact that there's also a world of a difference between on street harassment and domestic violence. I'm trying to see your point there, but I'm guessing I may have missed it?

OldNotWIse

enfant terrible wrote: »

What if the guy did nothing wrong, is it that easy to get guys thrown out of places?

Is calling someone a "stuck up c*nt" not enough?

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The only thing I'm actually in doubt about is people calling for it to be made a criminal offence that someone could be prosecuted for. I personally don't think it should be. It's annoying, certainly, but criminal? Hardly.

Did I mention 'criminal' ? But now that you mention it - the 1997 Non Fatal Offences against the person Act states that:

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

Whilst that legislation is close to what I believe you are referring to the current Act falls outside the remit of actual prosecuting as a once of act of Harrasment in that it refers to a person 'persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating' with another person.

That said I'm sure that that particular Act could be suitably amended to prosecute serious cases of harassment ie Where such harassment could "seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.". Such changes would require a change in current legislation to cover street harassment. Will it ever happen? Who knows?

Like other offences against the person - I believe it is a case of assessing the serious of specific harassment incidents. Physical assault was not a criminal matter until the 19th Century. Even today actual prosecutions are taken on the basis of the facts of any incidents and not just a blanket approach as you indicated. A person may be indeed be charged with a criminal act however it is up to the courts to determine if a matter is indeed prosecutable and merits punishment such as imprisonment etc where that behaviour is stated to be a crime that may lead to prosecution.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That particular campaign was as badly thought out as the video in the original post, notwithstanding the fact that there's also a world of a difference between on street harassment and domestic violence. I'm trying to see your point there, but I'm guessing I may have missed it?

Btw I did not compare street harassment with domestic violence - I indicated that the appeal to men's morality could be broadened to include such behaviour.

Of note the issue of domestic violence was also once dismissed - Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems viewed wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband's authority over his wife. Thankfully the law has changed and those who engage in domestic violence can be prosecuted. I make no reference btw to the campaign but tbh I believe the general idea of the slogan which aims to tackle the mind set of those who chose to engage in such behaviour.

Street harassment like many things may vary from the banal - eg 'hi baby' to the very serious eg b/tch 'I'm going to rape you' where a person may be in real fear of violence and actual harm -

However It is indeed unfortunate that it often takes legislation to deal with harmful human behaviours. Entreating or appealing to logic unfortunately rarely appears to work. If serious harassment is not to be criminalised then how do you suggest such harassment is dealt with?

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

Did I mention 'criminal' ? But now that you mention it - the 1997 Non Fatal Offences against the person Act states that:

Whilst that legislation is close to what I believe you are referring to the current Act falls outside the remit of actual prosecuting as a once of act of Harrasment in that it refers to a person 'persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating' with another person.

That said I'm sure that that particular Act could be suitably amended to prosecute serious cases of harassment ie Where such harassment could "seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.". Such changes would require a change in current legislation to cover street harassment. Will it ever happen? Who knows?

Like other offences against the person - I believe it is a case of assessing the serious of specific harassment incidents. Physical assault was not a criminal matter until the 19th Century. Even today actual prosecutions are taken on the basis of the facts of any incidents and not just a blanket approach as you indicated. A person may be indeed be charged with a criminal act however it is up to the courts to determine if a matter is indeed prosecutable and merits punishment such as imprisonment etc where that behaviour is stated to be a crime that may lead to prosecution.

It's already happened though, you're just referring to the wrong Act. The Criminal Justice Act 2006, covers antisocial behaviour. The Criminal Justice Act provides for the issuing of Behaviour Warnings for both adults and children, Good Behaviour Contracts for children and, as a last resort, ASBOs or as they are officially known Behaviour Orders (for a child) and Civil Orders (for an adult) -

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0026/sec0114.html


I'd sooner see the current incremental system remain in place than classify low-level antisocial behaviour as a criminal offence. I was only questioning why other people would want to see it classified as a criminal offence?

That seems to me anyway like overkill.

Btw I did not compare street harassment with domestic violence - I indicated that the appeal to men's morality could be broadened to include such behaviour.

Ok I see where you're coming from now. I shouldn't need to point out the obvious, but appealing to people's sense of morality is a waste of time when their sense of morality doesn't jig with yours. You and I see the harm in antisocial behaviour and it's effect on society, but at an individual level, people's sense of entitlement often over-rides their sense of morality. I think you'd be wasting your time appealing to adults who didn't see anything wrong with their behaviour.

Of note the issue of domestic violence was also once dismissed - Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems viewed wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband's authority over his wife. Thankfully the law has changed and those who engage in domestic violence can be prosecuted. I make no reference btw to the campaign but tbh I believe the general idea of the slogan which aims to tackle the mind set of those who chose to engage in such behaviour.

Social atttitudes changed though, and that's what caused a change in the law. You're attempting the reverse - calling for a change in the law to force social change. The mindset and attitude in individuals that causes that same sense of entitlement, is the same attitude that doesn't like to be forced to change their behaviour, and all that'll happen is you'll have people simply disregard laws that don't suit them. You'll have changed nothing.

The general idea of the slogan was criticised left, right and centre btw. I understood the idea behind it - calling on men to call other men out on their behaviour. But the idea was poorly thought out because most people interpreted it as addressing men in an accusatory tone, while ignoring the fact that women were equally perpetrators of domestic violence.

It's actually quite similar to what you're doing in ignoring the fact that women also engage in antisocial behaviour. Would you support women being criminalised for the same offence?

Street harassment like many things may vary from the banal - eg 'hi baby' to the very serious eg b/tch 'I'm going to rape you' where a person may be in real fear of violence and actual harm -

However It is indeed unfortunate that it often takes legislation to deal with harmful human behaviours. Entreating or appealing to logic unfortunately rarely appears to work. If serious harassment is not to be criminalised then how do you suggest such harassment is dealt with?

I know it's a long thread, and maybe you missed it, but I gave an answer to that question in this post -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92861656&postcount=864

Ok, I didn't mean to imply that anything shouldn't be done. I'm trying to say that legislating against it won't do anything either to prevent it, or curb the prevalence of it. It's low level antisocial behaviour at worst, and that's why I'm trying to say that it's up to each of us as part of society to do our part to eliminate the attitude that causes the behaviour, nip it in the bud so to speak, rather than expect that legislation should have any effect.

Dayum

Honestly, we can't even leave the house without someone passing comment. It's ridiculous that we can't even wear what we want anymore for fear of being harassed in the street.

Duck Soup

A moderately good-natured discussion of the points - not surprisingly, covering much of the same ground covered here - but what I found interesting (as has happened here) is that the man in the discussion is telling women how they feel/think. "There's nothing more you like than to be told you're beautiful" etc

He doesn't really allow for the opposite - that it's not that women are being disingenuous when they say they don't welcome the attention, but that the men are on a muff hunt. At least be honest about it.

Rubberchikken

while maybe not harrassment, someone random just asking 'hi how are you?' would be intrusive in my books.

what's the point really?
and it will be men who say it. guaranteed.

ahnowbrowncow

Rubberchikken wrote: »

while maybe not harrassment, someone random just asking 'hi how are you?' would be intrusive in my books.

what's the point really?
and it will be men who say it. guaranteed.

Someone saying, "hi, how are you?" is intrusive now?

What's the point in being friendly? ffs.

Dayum

Rubberchikken wrote: »

while maybe not harrassment, someone random just asking 'hi how are you?' would be intrusive in my books.

what's the point really?
and it will be men who say it. guaranteed.

You've completely lost the plot.

P. Breathnach

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Someone saying, "hi, how are you?" is intrusive now? ...

In some circumstances, yes.

One eyed Jack

Rubberchikken wrote: »

while maybe not harrassment, someone random just asking 'hi how are you?' would be intrusive in my books.

what's the point really?
and it will be men who say it. guaranteed.

Of course men will say it, and women will say it too. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there?

What's the point? Well there are as many motivations to say it, as there are reasons to feel intimidated by someone saying it.

The onus really is on the person who wants to say it, to determine whether the person would welcome it or not. It doesn't take a genius to figure out whether the person would welcome their intrusion or not, that's just the most basic of social skills, and the person that isn't considerate of anyone else but themselves, is the person that never sees any occasion where their intrusion might be unwelcome.

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Someone saying, "hi, how are you?" is intrusive now?

What's the point in being friendly? ffs.

It's always good to be friendly, but if your primary motivation for intruding on someone else is simply to make yourself feel better, that's just being inconsiderate of the other person, and they are well within their rights to ignore you.

If you persist in your behaviour towards them, thinking you're just being friendly, that's when you're crossing the line over into harassment.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's already happened though, you're just referring to the wrong Act. The Criminal Justice Act 2006, covers antisocial behaviour. The Criminal Justice Act provides for the issuing of Behaviour Warnings for both adults and children, Good Behaviour Contracts for children and, as a last resort, ASBOs or as they are officially known Behaviour Orders (for a child) and Civil Orders (for an adult) -

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0026/sec0114.html

The wrong act according to who? The 1997 Act deals with harassment type behaviour. Specifically it relates to where such behaviour is persistent. I suppose the Criminal Justice Act warnings /Asbos etc could perhaps be a way forward for the type of harassment as defined in the Offences Against the Person Act. However rather than necessitating that such behaviour be defined as persistsantly directed against one person, a three strikes rule against the perpetrator for any similar offences may be more useful especially where that individual engages in regular harassment against one or more individuals. Where an individual has multiple orders against them - then more serious sanctions should then be considered.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd sooner see the current incremental system remain in place than classify low-level antisocial behaviour as a criminal offence. I was only questioning why other people would want to see it classified as a criminal offence? That seems to me anyway like overkill.

The issue is that harassment is generally directed against an individual unlike say for example a charge 'Drunk and Disorderly" which can be more correctly defined as anti-social behaviour

"One wrote:

Ok I see where you're coming from now. I shouldn't need to point out the obvious, but appealing to people's sense of morality is a waste of time when their sense of morality doesn't jig with yours. You and I see the harm in antisocial behaviour and it's effect on society, but at an individual level, people's sense of entitlement often over-rides their sense of morality. I think you'd be wasting your time appealing to adults who didn't see anything wrong with their behaviour.

I am in agreement with you that to many such appeals are often ineffective. Hence the need to create a punitive response to such behaviour which in theory should make individuals think twice before engaging in harassing type behaviours.

"One wrote:

Social atttitudes changed though, and that's what caused a change in the law. You're attempting the reverse - calling for a change in the law to force social change. The mindset and attitude in individuals that causes that same sense of entitlement, is the same attitude that doesn't like to be forced to change their behaviour, and all that'll happen is you'll have people simply disregard laws that don't suit them. You'll have changed nothing.

Not at all. The fact that there is a whole thread devoted to this and the fact that it is being discussed in mainstream media indicates that there are some signs of a change of attitude towards this type of behaviour. With this comes the idea where something is perceived as wrong them society looks to punish those who commit serious harassment against others.

"One wrote:

The general idea of the slogan was criticised left, right and centre btw. I understood the idea behind it - calling on men to call other men out on their behaviour. But the idea was poorly thought out because most people interpreted it as addressing men in an accusatory tone, while ignoring the fact that women were equally perpetrators of domestic violence.

Again I would agree re domestic violence being more than just a male reserve. However another wrong didn't make a right. Again I highlighted it as a general approach - that may work certain circumstances.

"One wrote:

Its actually quite similar to what you're doing in ignoring the fact that women also engage in antisocial behaviour. Would you support women being criminalised for the same offence?

I have already pointed out that woman may engage in harassment. However once again one wrong does not make a right. Pointing the finger and saying "oh well - he/she does it as well so that means it ok!" Is very bogus logic imo. Re woman engaging in harassment - Absolutely - as I pointed out I don't think anyone has made a case that men don't get harassed. They do and can. Woman may be perpetrators as well.

"One wrote:

I know it's a long thread, and maybe you missed it, but I gave an answer to that question in this post -

Ok, I didn't mean to imply that anything shouldn't be done. I'm trying to say that legislating against it won't do anything either to prevent it, or curb the prevalence of it. It's low level antisocial behaviour at worst, and that's why I'm trying to say that it's up to each of us as part of society to do our part to eliminate the attitude that causes the behaviour, nip it in the bud so to speak, rather than expect that legislation should have any effect.[/url]

Laws dealing with infringements of others rights are designed to be both punitive and also act as a deterrent to would be perpetrators. Currently there are no real deterrents against such behaviour. Hence this discussion. Again I don't agree such behaviour can be defined as necessarily 'Anti-social'. As defined in the Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act - Harassment is behaviour targeted at an individual where "...a person harasses another where

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other."

I would argue that Somewhat like the futility of appealing to a moral standard the likelihood an approach such as you advocated that "that it's up to each of us as part of society to do our part to eliminate the attitude that causes the behaviour" is unlikely to be successful imo.

But hey people are now talking about it and that alone is raising awareness of the issue.

Irlandczyk

Duck Soup wrote: »

A moderately good-natured discussion of the points - not surprisingly, covering much of the same ground covered here - but what I found interesting (as has happened here) is that the man in the discussion is telling women how they feel/think. "There's nothing more you like than to be told you're beautiful" etc

He doesn't really allow for the opposite - that it's not that women are being disingenuous when they say they don't welcome the attention, but that the men are on a muff hunt. At least be honest about it.

Wow, the guy who wrote the "Bro Bible" doesn't quite understand why it might be wrong to annoy a girl even after she's told him it's unwelcome... why am I not surprised? Though I must say, the girl towards the start (and some in this thread too) mentioned that even saying 'Hello' would be considered a form of harassment, due to the element of paranoia that comes with a stranger approaching them. I can't fathom a world where everyone surrounds themselves in a bubble and refuses to engage with the outside world as soon as they leave the house. Is it possible that both sides are overreacting here a little bit?

Is it not possible for me to talk to a girl without being "on a muff hunt"?

P. Breathnach

Irlandczyk wrote: »

...
Is it not possible for me to talk to a girl without being "on a muff hunt"?

Of course it is. You have to pick the right circumstances.

Some of the stuff being discussed here is about people picking the wrong circumstances (and some is about people saying the wrong kind of thing, but that's a different issue).

In the video posted at the beginning of the thread, the woman was walking moderately fast and purposefully. To me, that would convey the message that she was not interested in conversation with strangers. Even if I were lost and wanted to ask for directions, I'd choose somebody else to ask.

bodice ripper

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Someone saying, "hi, how are you?" is intrusive now?

What's the point in being friendly? ffs.

If it's blatantly in an attempt to get quick hole, it's not friendly.

P. Breathnach

bodice ripper wrote: »

If it's blatantly in an attempt to get quick hole, it's not friendly.

Username suggests appropriate expertise!

Foxtrol

Duck Soup wrote: »

A moderately good-natured discussion of the points - not surprisingly, covering much of the same ground covered here - but what I found interesting (as has happened here) is that the man in the discussion is telling women how they feel/think. "There's nothing more you like than to be told you're beautiful" etc

He doesn't really allow for the opposite - that it's not that women are being disingenuous when they say they don't welcome the attention, but that the men are on a muff hunt. At least be honest about it.

There's been plenty of women on this thread who have told men how to think/feel too when it comes to things that they say to them.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

The wrong act according to who? The 1997 Act deals with harassment type behaviour. Specifically it relates to where such behaviour is persistent. I suppose the Criminal Justice Act warnings /Asbos etc could perhaps be a way forward for the type of harassment as defined in the Offences Against the Person Act. However rather than necessitating that such behaviour be defined as persistsantly to one person, a three strikes rule against the perpetrator may be more useful especially where that individual engages in regular harassment against one or more individuals. Where an individual has multiple orders against them - then more serious sanctions should be considered.

What you're doing there is applying the wrong statute, in effect criminalising the behaviour. You keep missing the point that the 1997 act refers to behaviour where the harassment is persistent. A once off incident of street calling is not persistent behaviour, it's a once off, that doesn't meet the standard where the 1997 act could be applied (notwithstanding that the 1997 act referring to harassment in the context of offences against the person
includes family members, where the 2006 act referring to harassment in the context of antisocial behaviour excludes family members).

What you're talking about doing is amending the 1997 act to include provisions that already exist under the 2006 act.

The issue is that harassment is generally directed against an individual unlike say for example a charge 'Drunk and Disorderly" which can be more correctly defined as anti-social behaviour

In order to prosecute someone for harassment under the 1997 act, you'd have to be able to demonstrate that the perpetrator had a pattern of harassing a specific individual. You wouldn't be able to demonstrate that if it was one person harassing people indiscriminately. That's more likely to meet the antisocial behaviour requirement under the 2006 act.

I am in agreement with you that to many such appealed are ineffective. Hence the need to create a punitive response to such behaviour which in theory should make individuals think twice before engaging in harassing type behaviours.

A punitive response already exists. It's a judgement call as to what meets that standard, and what doesn't, and those factors can vary depending on the particulars of each different scenario.

Not at all. The fact that there is a whole thread devoted to this and the fact that it is being discussed in mainstream media indicates that there are some signs of attitudes towards this type of behaviour. With this comes the idea where something is perceived as wrong them society looks to punish those who commit serious harassment against others.

I wouldn't base your hopes for social change on anything anyone says on the internet tbh! It's a sign, but it's no real reflection of reality. Social change happens over generations, not years. Society doesn't consider street calling serious harassment, only a minority of individuals consider street calling serious enough to label it harassment in terms of an offence against the person.

Again I would agree re domestic violence being more than just a male reserve. However another wrong didn't make a right. Again I highlighted it as a general approach - that may work in. Retain circumstances.

The slogan didn't work for domestic violence, it's certainly not going to work for street calling.

I have already pointed out that woman may engage in harassment. However once again one wrong does not make a right. Pointing the finger and saying "oh well - he/she dies it as well so that means it ok!" Is very bogus logic imo. Re woman engaging in harassment - Absolutely - as I pointed out I don't think anyone has made a case that men don't get harassed. They do and can. Woman may be perpetrators as well.

None of that actually answered my question though. I asked you would you also support the idea that women be criminalised for the behaviour, in the same way as you're calling for men to be criminalised for the behaviour?

Laws dealing with infringements of others rights are designed to be both punitive and act as a deterrent to would be perpetrators. Current there are no real deterrents against such behaviour. Hence this discussion. Again I don't agree it is necessarily 'Anti-social'. As defined in the Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act - Harassment is behaviour targeted at an individual where "...a person harasses another where

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other."

Again, as I already tried to explain - you're applying the wrong statute. You're criminalising a behaviour for not a good enough reason. There is no way IMO a person should face the possibility of a custodial sentence for verbal assault on complete strangers. The reason civil orders are imposed is because it avoids clogging up the judicial system unnecessarily and diverting resources away from prosecuting more serious offences.

I would argue that Somewhat like the futility of appealing to a moral standard the likelihood an approach such as you advocated that "that it's up to each of us as part of society to do our part to eliminate the attitude that causes the behaviour" is unlikely to be successful imo.

It's unlikely to eliminate the behaviour 100% effectively, but it's likely to have more of an impact than criminalising the behaviour. Criminalising what is considered low level antisocial behaviour, simply offers no benefit to society.

But hey people are now talking about it and that alone is raising awareness of the issue.

Erm, I don't mean to be facetious, but you say that like nobody was aware of the issue already. Everyone at some point in their lives has been intimidated and harassed, they're very much aware of the issue. That's why videos like the one in the OP simply trivialise the issue - because they actually went out of their way seeking to be harassed and intimidated. At no point in the clip we're shown was she ever actually in any danger, whereas the guy could have stood in the one spot and filmed people being harassed and intimidated all round him for real, without needing to hire an actress and film her walking around the roughest parts of NY for 10 hours!

enfant terrible

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Is calling someone a "stuck up c*nt" not enough?

Who said it wasn't?

Limewater

bodice ripper wrote: »

If it's blatantly in an attempt to get quick hole, it's not friendly.

Whenever I chat women up looking for sex I'm always friendly, so that sweeping statement simply isn't true.

Irlandczyk

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Of course it is. You have to pick the right circumstances.

Some of the stuff being discussed here is about people picking the wrong circumstances (and some is about people saying the wrong kind of thing, but that's a different issue).

In the video posted at the beginning of the thread, the woman was walking moderately fast and purposefully. To me, that would convey the message that she was not interested in conversation with strangers. Even if I were lost and wanted to ask for directions, I'd choose somebody else to ask.

Quite agree, though I was more talking about those who say that even a guy coming up and saying a simple 'Hi, how are you?' to a girl is off-limits due to it being a perceived threat. What if people never walked around with open, friendly body language? What if people always had somewhere to be? I get it: If someone looks like they don't want to be spoken to, probably best not to speak to them. However, in a lot of cases I feel people are just becoming more and more insular these days. Often times, people can walk around there own neighbourhood and not know what it really looks like, things that go on, etc...

At no point would I ever be mean, aggressive, or downright insulting to another person (male or female alike), but I do feel that people spend too much time in their own heads these days.

P. Breathnach

Irlandczyk wrote: »

Quite agree, though I was more talking about those who say that even a guy coming up and saying a simple 'Hi, how are you?' to a girl is off-limits due to it being a perceived threat....

I don't think it is universally off-limits, but there are circumstances where it might be perceived as a threat - particularly the idea of a guy coming up to somebody. Think quiet city street at night; woman on her own; man crosssing the street towards her...

Kovalev68

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think it is universally off-limits, but there are circumstances where it might be perceived as a threat - particularly the idea of a guy coming up to somebody. Think quiet city street at night; woman on her own; man crosssing the street towards her...

Most reasonable people would know that's not the time nor the place.

Iranoutofideas

You've got to love the Huffington Post. Last week they went into full on "rape culture" hysteria mode.

This week they offer up this gem:

If a woman in Los Angeles is single and over 50 the message the city gives her, both personally and professionally is, "Get out of town."
As a woman in my 50s, walking down a city street, I feel invisible to almost any man walking past me. I've been that unseen woman over and over again. Friends have echoed this experience to me as well.
Even though he doesn't realize it, deep down in his lizard brain, when a man asks a woman how old you are, they really don't want to know your age, they want to know how many eggs you have left.
Lauren Hutton (now 69), supermodel to my generation, posed nude at 62. She said at the time: "It's really important that women understand not to listen to a 2,000-year-old patriarchal society." She added, "There once was a proverb that said, 'It's the old fiddle that plays the sweetest music.'
Inspired by my unnoticed peers, I wrote a novel, The Last Place She'd Look about a woman turning 50, her efforts to become noticed in the world, and ultimately to find happiness and a fulfilling relationship, but not without some mishaps and ego bruising along the way.
When I think of female contemporaries I wonder, why is a woman who is confident, with a self assured sexual ease, invisible, ignored and undesired on her local landscape? Is it that men and boys want naive girls they can control? Should we ask George Clooney?
A woman past 50 is experienced in giving and receiving pleasure; grateful when understood and appreciated. She is like a classic car, a fine wine, or an imported cigar. The engine hums, with a complex taste and a smooth relaxing smoke. It's a sharp, insightful and lucky man who can appreciate the passion, depth and beauty of a seasoned, sensual woman.

So the next time a man sees me or any of my mid-life female friends out in the world, he should LOOK AT US. Then smile and say, "Hello." He'll be in for an astonishing surprise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arlene-schindler-/women-feeling-invisible_b_4151551.html

Yeah we all know what the surprise will be - "OH MY GOD HOW DARE YOU HARASS ME YOU SEXUAL PREDATOR"

You couldn't make this **** up