Sexy street harassment

tritium

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

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:



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

So which is it folks?

(and please bear in mind that nobody is mind reader )

bodice ripper

Limewater wrote: »

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

Creepy chap in blithely unaware of other people having feelings shocker...

Kovalev68

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

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:



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

Some people just can't accept reality. Eventually you age and become less attractive to the opposite sex. If you are in you're 50's and still haven't accepted that, it's probably best that you are invisible.

bb1234567

Kovalev68 wrote: »

Some people just can't accept reality. Eventually you age and become less attractive to the opposite sex. If you are in you're 50's and still haven't accepted that, it's probably best that you are invisible.

Less does not mean none. A woman over 50 is less attractive than she was at 25 but it doesnt mean shes unattractive.

Kovalev68

bb1234567 wrote: »

Less does not mean none. A woman over 50 is less attractive than she was at 25 but it doesnt mean shes unattractive.

I did say less.

Irlandczyk

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...

So then those people on a crowded NY street saying "Hi, how are you today?" or "Have a good evening. God bless you." are not harrassment at all? Not trying to trivialise street harrassment at all. Just the vibe I'm getting from both the 10 hour video and the interview with the (sleazy awful) man and the girl on CBS. And further, wondering what happens when people become so insular to the point that NO time is acceptable to say hi.

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

You've got to love the Huffington Post.
...
You couldn't make this **** up

Wow, the timing of that article really couldn't be worse, could it? You have to wonder whether that viral video crossed her editors mind even for a second before going ahead with that publication...

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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).

Tbh I think you are just splitting hairs at this stage. But anyways ...

I referred specifically to the Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act because in my opinion it gives a more complete definition of harassment in comparison with other Acts and is therefore relevant. I have already stated clearly that the Act would require change to relate to street harassment. The 1997 Act does not preclude strangers btw.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

The 2006 Act doesn't specifically cover Harassment. Although some of the provisions of the 2006 act you refer to may indeed be useful in providing examples of punitive measures to be applied to first time or minor harasment infractions. More serious threats or repeated Harassment by an individual (and not necessarily of the same person) may obviously need to be dealt with more harshly than once off or less serious incidents

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Yes thanks - I know & I already pointed that out.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

What it doesn't cover is dealing with serious / serial harassers who continually use such behaviour to threaten / harass. What I have suggested is that such continued behaviour coyld carry greater penalties to those who continue to threaten others.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Lol Where did I say I was going to? Again back to the Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act specifically details and defines the nature of harassment (albeit persistent behaviour against a single individual). I have suggested that this could be redefined as persistent harassing behaviour (as in the person of the perpetrator).

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

I have already detailed that such campaign may have some success in raising awareness etc.I am not holding my breath however.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

It's a daft question imo. One which does not need clarification. Though as you felt the need to ask - I need to ask in return why would any legislation regarding harassment need to define an offence by gender? What would this achieve? Has anyone suggested this?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

No existing law adequately deals with street harassment. I have detailed the 1997 Act in that it already defines similar (but obviously not identical harassment). I have clearly stated that any Law would need careful drafting to properly cover serial repeat harassers due to the random nature of such behaviour.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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 but but - you have already dismissed appealing to a perpetrators higher nature and campaigns to achieve same I repeat that harassment cannot be defined as 'anti-social' as it targets the individual. It is in effect a (non fatal) offence against the person.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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!

I disagree. It would appear that some. people are more aware than others. This is normal btw. Tbh the video has got the current debate in motion. That is a good thing imo. That street harassment happens is without doubt. That many woman and men find such harasment extremely intimidating and threatening is without doubt. That we are talking about this means that we move towards greater awareness of the issue. T

One eyed Jack

Irlandczyk wrote: »

So then those people on a crowded NY street saying "Hi, how are you today?" or "Have a good evening. God bless you." are not harrassment at all? Not trying to trivialise street harrassment at all. Just the vibe I'm getting from both the 10 hour video and the interview with the (sleazy awful) man and the girl on CBS. And further, wondering what happens when people become so insular to the point that NO time is acceptable to say hi.

Oh come on, you know it's not a definined line that's drawn in the sand where you should need other people to tell you how to behave towards other people. You're not a child so I presume you must surely have some awareness and social intelligence. You're able to tell when people are according to you insular and not displaying open body language.

You're suggesting that people should be more open to each other and all the rest of it, but that is your issue that you're projecting onto them. They're not interfering with you or intimidating you in any way. You want them to acknowledge you so that you can feel better. Complete strangers to you don't actually owe you anything. They have every right to be insular 24/7 if they want. You cannot force people out of themselves so that you may feel more comfortable in yourself.

When did it become unacceptable to go about your day minding your own business?

Iranoutofideas

tritium wrote: »

So which is it folks?

(and please bear in mind that nobody is mind reader )

It boils down to a choice between the two:

Say hello and be labelled a sex predator, ignore women and be labelled ageist.


And if you are ugly, forget it altogether. You're just a creep.

P. Breathnach

Irlandczyk wrote: »

So then those people on a crowded NY street saying "Hi, how are you today?" or "Have a good evening. God bless you." are not harrassment at all? ...

Some such behaviours are not harassment - but you have to take account of body language, tone of voice, and perhaps other factors. But I return to what I said earlier: she was walking moderately fast and in a purposeful manner, factors that suggest that she was not minded to interact with strangers. So speaking to her was, at best, intrusive on her privacy.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

Tbh I think you are just splitting hairs at this stage. But anyways ...

I referred specifically to the Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act because in my opinion it gives a more complete definition of harassment in comparison with other Acts and is therefore relevant. I have already stated clearly that the Act would require change to relate to street harassment. The 1997 Act does not preclude strangers btw.

It's harassment in a completely different context. It's this simple - the two laws are the difference between harassment of a person, and harassment of people. In one context it is a criminal offence because it is persistent and targeted against an individual. In the other context, it is a civil offence because it is occasional and not specifically targeted against an individual.

That's not splitting hairs, that's stating facts that simply don't suit you.

The 2006 Act doesn't specifically cover Harassment. Although some of the provisions of the 2006 act you refer to may indeed be useful in providing examples of punitive measures to be applied to first time or minor harasment infractions. More serious threats or repeated Harassment by an individual (and not necessarily of the same person) may obviously need to be dealt with more harshly than once off or less serious incidents

The 2006 act DOES specifically cover harassment as an antisocial behaviour. That doesn't suit you because you're looking at it from the perspective of the individual who is the victim of a once off verbal assault, when the perpetrator could have verbally assaulted 20 people before you. In your scenario the person would face 20 separate charges of harassment, instead of just one. There is already a punitive sliding scale in place in the 2006 act.

What it doesn't cover is dealing with serious / serial harassers who continually use such behaviour to threaten / harass. What I have suggested is that such continued behaviour coyld carry greater penalties to those who continue to threaten others.

Actually that's exactly what it does on a punitive sliding scale, from behaviour warnings up to ASBOs. If the person were to physically assault you, THEN we could talk about the 1997 act as a non-fatal offence against the person.

Lol Where did I say I was going to? Again back to the Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act specifically details and defines the nature of harassment (albeit persistent behaviour against a single individual). I have suggested that this could be redefined as persistent harassing behaviour (as in the person of the perpetrator).

What you're suggesting is exactly what already exists. It doesn't need to be redefined when it already has a specific context in the wording of both acts. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that. Persistent harassment of an individual is covered under the 1997 act. Persistent harassing behaviour is covered under the 2006 act. You just don't want to, or won't accept, that verbal harassment is considered antisocial behaviour.

It's a daft question imo. One which does not need clarification. Though as you felt the need to ask - I need to ask in return why would any legislation regarding harassment need to define an offence by gender? What would this achieve? Has anyone suggested this?

It's not a daft question. It's a question however that you seem to want to avoid giving me a straight answer to. You initially started out referring specifically to men (remember how you suggested that the "man up" slogan might be useful in appealing to men?). Not a word about women, and because you don't see it as antisocial behaviour, but a criminal offence, I am asking for clarification -

Would you support the idea of women being criminalised for the behaviour? A simple yes/no answer would do at this stage. I didn't make it a gender issue either, you did, by either ignoring, or initially failing to acknowledge that women also engage in the behaviour.

No existing law adequately deals with street harassment. I have detailed the 1997 Act in that it already defines similar (but obviously not identical harassment). I have clearly stated that any Law would need careful drafting to properly cover serial repeat harassers due to the random nature of such behaviour.

Correction - the laws that exist already don't adequately deal with street harassment according to you.

but but but - you have already dismissed appealing to a perpetrators higher nature and campaigns to achieve same I repeat that harassment cannot be defined as 'anti-social' as it targets the individual. It is in effect a (non fatal) offence against the person.

Street harassment doesn't target a specific individual in the same way as persistent harassment OF an individual. You can repeat that you don't consider it antisocial all you like, but it still doesn't change the facts.

Also with regard to your first point there, you can teach people before they become perpetrators, and I addressed that point in the same post I linked you to earlier.

I disagree. It would appear that some. people are more aware than others. This is normal btw. Tbh the video has got the current debate in motion. That is a good thing imo. That street harassment happens is without doubt. That many woman and men find such harasment extremely intimidating and threatening is without doubt. That we are talking about this means that we move towards greater awareness of the issue. There is no need to get any underwear in a twist tbh.

Actually the reason I'm not getting my underwear in a twist is because I know this "current debate" will be forgotten about by next week as soon as the next viral video "highlighting" a social injustice that everyone is aware of already, goes live.

I'll take bets on it being chaffing underwear, sub standard synthetic textiles are socially unjustifiable, because everyone has the right to comfortable cotton underwear that doesn't ride up or chaff. It's a tragedy that the world needs to be made aware of, and I think it needs to be highlighted

Post your belfies on social media and show your, ahem... "support" for a synthetic underwear free first world!

Irlandczyk

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh come on, you know it's not a definined line that's drawn in the sand where you should need other people to tell you how to behave towards other people. You're not a child so I presume you must surely have some awareness and social intelligence. You're able to tell when people are according to you insular and not displaying open body language.

You're suggesting that people should be more open to each other and all the rest of it, but that is your issue that you're projecting onto them. They're not interfering with you or intimidating you in any way. You want them to acknowledge you so that you can feel better. Complete strangers to you don't actually owe you anything. They have every right to be insular 24/7 if they want. You cannot force people out of themselves so that you may feel more comfortable in yourself.

When did it become unacceptable to go about your day minding your own business?

I think you're putting words in my mouth here. At no point did I say I wanted to force people to be open, and I never said it was unacceptable. I just think it's a shame that people are becoming more insular and less apt to have conversations with those around them, at least when there is a lack of alcohol around. Earlier on in the thread someone mentioned that the only time it was really acceptable to talk to a girl was out in a pub or a club, "where they're primed to talk to strangers" or something to that effect. If that were the case, I'd never have a girlfriend at the moment.

I've already mentioned that I'd never be deliberately disrespectful or insulting to anyone, so yes, I do have some awareness and social intelligence. I just find it sad that paranoia, or the pace of life, or insularity has taken over for the most part and people are less inclined to talk to one another.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Some such behaviours are not harassment - but you have to take account of body language, tone of voice, and perhaps other factors. But I return to what I said earlier: she was walking moderately fast and in a purposeful manner, factors that suggest that she was not minded to interact with strangers. So speaking to her was, at best, intrusive on her privacy.

True, actually. At the same time though, even if her body language suggested that she didn't want to talk, and given that those people weren't insulting or persisting in their efforts to engage her, I'd find it hard to class as harassment. At the very worst, she ignores them and moves on with her day, suffering the annoyance of being wished a good evening.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's harassment in a completely different context. It's this simple - the two laws are the difference between harassment of a person, and harassment of people. In one context it is a criminal offence because it is persistent and targeted against an individual. In the other context, it is a civil offence because it is occasional and not specifically targeted against an individual.

Lol how in the world how is an individual being targeted by a street harasser defined as "harassment of people"?? Do you have a source for this definition ?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not splitting hairs, that's stating facts that simply don't suit you.

Erh as far as I'm concerned this is a discussion. What 'facts' exactly are you referring to?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The 2006 act DOES specifically cover harassment as an antisocial behaviour. That doesn't suit you because you're looking at it from the perspective of the individual who is the victim of a once off verbal assault, when the perpetrator could have verbally assaulted 20 people before you. In your scenario the person would face 20 separate charges of harassment, instead of just one. There is already a punitive sliding scale in place in the 2006 act.

Does it? Again I think you are referring to that "harassment of people" that you referred to as in the instance of drunk and disorderly behaviour. Can you give examples of prosecutions for street harassment under the 2006 Act to date? Btw where did anything about '20 charges' originate?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Actually that's exactly what it does on a punitive sliding scale, from behaviour warnings up to ASBOs. If the person were to physically assault you, THEN we could talk about the 1997 act as a non-fatal offence against the person.

As very well explained previously - the scale deals with anti-social behaviour - while direct street harassment is evidently directed at the person. I would suggest to read the detail of the 1997 act again - a prosecution under this act does not have to include 'physical assault'. The section on harassment makes this quite clear.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you're suggesting is exactly what already exists. It doesn't need to be redefined when it already has a specific context in the wording of both acts. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that. Persistent harassment of an individual is covered under the 1997 act. Persistent harassing behaviour is covered under the 2006 act. You just don't want to, or won't accept, that verbal harassment is considered antisocial behaviour.

So why has there been no orders / prosecutions under this act for street harassment? It's obvious that street Harassment directed at an individual is just that and clearly does not fall under 'anti-social' behaviour as defined in the example of drunk and disorderly type behaviour etc.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a daft question. It's a question however that you seem to want to avoid giving me a straight answer to. You initially started out referring specifically to men (remember how you suggested that the "man up" slogan might be useful in appealing to men?). Not a word about women, and because you don't see it as antisocial behaviour, but a criminal offence, I am asking for clarification -

It remains a daft question. The thread was about women. If you wish to start a new thread about male harassment feel free to do so but no one is obliged to go off discussion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would you support the idea of women being criminalised for the behaviour? A simple yes/no answer would do at this stage. I didn't make it a gender issue either, you did, by either ignoring, or initially failing to acknowledge that women also engage in the behaviour.

I think you will find that I clearly indicated that harassment is not related to any one gender. If you wish to split further hairs please go ahead

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Correction - the laws that exist already don't adequately deal with street harassment according to you.

Ok already asked - where are the prosecutions /orders for perpetrators of street harasment??

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Street harassment doesn't target a specific individual in the same way as persistent harassment OF an individual. You can repeat that you don't consider it antisocial all you like, but it still doesn't change the facts.

But it's not :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Also with regard to your first point there, you can teach people before they become perpetrators, and I addressed that point in the same post I linked you to earlier.

Nurture or nature? I think that's an entirely different discussion ...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Actually the reason I'm not getting my underwear in a twist is because I know this "current debate" will be forgotten about by next week as soon as the next viral video "highlighting" a social injustice that everyone is aware of already, goes live.

That's your opinion - to which of course you are entitled. But I would really hope that like other similar momentums the effects of the discussion will last longer than any video.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll take bets on it being chaffing underwear, sub standard synthetic textiles are socially unjustifiable, because everyone has the right to comfortable cotton underwear that doesn't ride up or chaff. It's a tragedy that the world needs to be made aware of, and I think it needs to be highlighted

Erhh if you think so ...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Post your belfies on social media and show your, ahem... "support" for a synthetic underwear free first world!

Belfies? Good night...

One eyed Jack

Irlandczyk wrote: »

I think you're putting words in my mouth here. At no point did I say I wanted to force people to be open, and I never said it was unacceptable. I just think it's a shame that people are becoming more insular and less apt to have conversations with those around them, at least when there is a lack of alcohol around. Earlier on in the thread someone mentioned that the only time it was really acceptable to talk to a girl was out in a pub or a club, "where they're primed to talk to strangers" or something to that effect. If that were the case, I'd never have a girlfriend at the moment.

I've already mentioned that I'd never be deliberately disrespectful or insulting to anyone, so yes, I do have some awareness and social intelligence. I just find it sad that paranoia, or the pace of life, or insularity has taken over for the most part and people are less inclined to talk to one another.

I genuinely wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but what you seem to be getting at is a completely different issue altogether from street harassment.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

But it's not :rolleyes:

This seems to be the entire core of your discussion. You say street harassment is not antisocial behaviour, yet that's exactly how it is defined by most reasonable people. Where we go from there, I really don't know what else to tell you, as you seem to want to reinterpret laws to suit you the individual rather than us as a society.

That's your opinion - to which of course you are entitled. But I would really hope that like other similar momentums the effects of the discussion will last longer than any video.

That's the thing with all these social injustice momentums - they blaze through the blogosphere and burn out pretty quickly. This will do the same, just like every other online momentum that lost it's momentum as people had more important things on their minds.

Belfies? Good night...

Don't look at me at all, I didn't come up with the idea - they're all the rage on social media now after selfies - people taking pictures of their bums and posting them on social media! While you're worried about street harassment, people are going crazy posting pictures of their arses online on social media for likes!

What does that tell you about any hope for the eradication of street harassment?

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Some such behaviours are not harassment - but you have to take account of body language, tone of voice, and perhaps other factors. But I return to what I said earlier: she was walking moderately fast and in a purposeful manner, factors that suggest that she was not minded to interact with strangers. So speaking to her was, at best, intrusive on her privacy.

misreading or not reading someones body language in no way constitutes harassment and i feel like walking along the streets of one of the most heavily populated cites on the planet and expecting privacy is borderline arrogant or plain ignorance.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This seems to be the entire core of your discussion. You say street harassment is not antisocial behaviour, yet that's exactly how it is defined by most reasonable people. Where we go from there, I really don't know what else to tell you, as you seem to want to reinterpret laws to suit you the individual rather than us as a society.

Ah the old appeal to the 'Most Reasonable People' line of righteousness. I too could argue MRP but that is a completely null position tbh. But do feel free to cite sources of the multiple MRPs whenever. The 1997 act clearly defines harassment as an offence against the person so no I am not reinterpreting it to something it is clearly not. "Us" again ... :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the thing with all these social injustice momentums - they blaze through the blogosphere and burn out pretty quickly. This will do the same, just like every other online momentum that lost it's momentum as people had more important things on their minds.

Well all things have their time and place and here we are discussing the issue, Dismissing such things as street harassment as unimportant is not really particularly useful is it?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Don't look at me at all, I didn't come up with the idea - they're all the rage on social media now after selfies - people taking pictures of their bums and posting them on social media! While you're worried about street harassment, people are going crazy posting pictures of their arses online on social media for likes!

Again other idiots actions doesn't make street harassment right does it? You want to start a thread on online arses? Feel free

One eyed Jack wrote: »

TWhat does that tell you about any hope for the eradication of street harassment?

Who knows ...

DoYouEvenLift

Wonder if anyone who's really mad about all this ever stands in and draws attention when men get grabbed and groped etc. in clubs, and yes this happens to a lot of men quite often. Obviously women receive the same treatment but would be interesting if there was some way of finding out how many of the people who would confront the groper of the woman do the same for the man.

P. Breathnach

Isaiah Narrow Turbojet wrote: »

misreading or not reading someones body language in no way constitutes harassment

Similarly, I don't feel harassed because you seem to have misread what I said. Slightly irked, but not harassed. I'll get over it.

and i feel like walking along the streets of one of the most heavily populated cites on the planet and expecting privacy is borderline arrogant or plain ignorance.

In many ways, cities are more private than small communities. I have rambled around Manhattan (note rambled, not walked purposefully as if I were going somewhere) and experienced virtually no intrusions on my privacy. It's been similar in other cities. Why is my experience different? I suspect it is because I am male, older, and often accompanied by my wife.

Kovalev68

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Similarly, I don't feel harassed because you seem to have misread what I said. Slightly irked, but not harassed. I'll get over it.

In many ways, cities are more private than small communities. I have rambled around Manhattan (note rambled, not walked purposefully as if I were going somewhere) and experienced virtually no intrusions on my privacy. It's been similar in other cities. Why is my experience different? I suspect it is because I am male, older, and often accompanied by my wife.

Are you saying no one has approached you in Manhattan to try and sell you something?

It makes me feel uncomfortable and it is intrusive to me but that's their right to try to sell me something, it is my right to say no and walk on.

Annasopra

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Wonder if anyone who's really mad about all this ever stands in and draws attention when men get grabbed and groped etc. in clubs, and yes this happens to a lot of men quite often. Obviously women receive the same treatment but would be interesting if there was some way of finding out how many of the people who would confront the groper of the woman do the same for the man.

Maybe someone should post the whatabout the men video here. Oh wait.

DoYouEvenLift

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Maybe someone should post the whatabout the men video here. Oh wait.

That's on the streets, I'm talking about a slightly off topic scenario

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

Ah the old appeal to the 'Most Reasonable People' line of righteousness. I too could argue MRP but that is a completely null position tbh. But do feel free to cite sources of the multiple MRPs whenever. The 1997 act clearly defines harassment as an offence against the person so no I am not reinterpreting it to something it is clearly not. "Us" again ... :rolleyes:

I won't be going to too much effort, but for you to say that the reasonable person is a completely null position, when it's a defined term in common, criminal and contract law, shows you have a very poor understanding of the law. This is just basic stuff. The 1997 law referring to harassment requires that it is persistent harassment by an individual upon an individual. Street harassment doesn't meet that standard.

Well all things have their time and place and here we are discussing the issue, Dismissing such things as street harassment as unimportant is not really particularly useful is it?

It's not as serious as other crimes, which is why it's not criminal behaviour. It's categorised as antisocial behaviour. You consider street harassment to be serious enough to criminalise the behaviour, but a reasonable person doesn't.

Again other idiots actions doesn't make street harassment right does it? You want to start a thread on online arses? Feel free

My point wasn't that street harassment is acceptable behaviour, my point was that most people don't particularly care enough about it to get too worked up about it to campaign for the behaviour to be criminalised.

beks101

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

It boils down to a choice between the two:

Say hello and be labelled a sex predator, ignore women and be labelled ageist.

And if you are ugly, forget it altogether. You're just a creep.

Or maybe everything isn't actually black or white and there's a difference between positive male attention and street harassment?

I'm a woman and I like being appreciated for my looks as much as the next person. I like being checked out or smiled at or approached by someone in a respectful and mannerly way and I'll never shoot someone down for doing those things.

What I don't like is being yelled at, aggressively approached, accosted and hounded for not responding in the way I am expected to respond (i.e 'thank you for crossing my personal boundaries and interrupting me so rudely, please, do take my number'), intimate body parts ogled and commented upon, and generally intimidated by overtly sexual language.

Kovalev68

beks101 wrote: »

Or maybe everything isn't actually black or white and there's a difference between positive male attention and street harassment?

I'm a woman and I like being appreciated for my looks as much as the next person. I like being checked out or smiled at or approached by someone in a respectful and mannerly way and I'll never shoot someone down for doing those things.

What I don't like is being yelled at, aggressively approached, accosted and hounded for not responding in the way I am expected to respond (i.e 'thank you for crossing my personal boundaries and interrupting me so rudely, please, do take my number'), intimate body parts ogled and commented upon, and generally intimidated by overtly sexual language.

Even for after hours I don't think you'll find anyone that disagrees with above.

OldNotWIse

beks101 wrote: »

Or maybe everything isn't actually black or white and there's a difference between positive male attention and street harassment?

I'm a woman and I like being appreciated for my looks as much as the next person. I like being checked out or smiled at or approached by someone in a respectful and mannerly way and I'll never shoot someone down for doing those things.

What I don't like is being yelled at, aggressively approached, accosted and hounded for not responding in the way I am expected to respond (i.e 'thank you for crossing my personal boundaries and interrupting me so rudely, please, do take my number'), intimate body parts ogled and commented upon, and generally intimidated by overtly sexual language.

Agree so much with this. Sadly, there are people who will label you stuck up and accuse you of thinking you are better than others.

PopePalpatine

Kovalev68 wrote: »

Even for after hours I don't think you'll find anyone that disagrees with above.

You underestimate pick-up artists.

Kovalev68

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You underestimate pick-up artists.

So pick up artists think it's ok to harass a woman after they've said they aren't interested??

denhaagenite

Ok, back to assaults --> catcalling. As Cathy said, robbing a lollipop is not as serious as breaking into a house but they are both theft and this is what I was referring to. She doesn't seem to understand the concept of a spectrum. As for saying that assault is in no way tolerated, refer back to my comment on spanking someone on a dance floor. In a lot of cases I'm sure no one does anything about it.

With the videos, they are both edited but it is very clear to me (surprised that others don't see it) that the in video with the guy in the white t- shirt most of the "catcalls" have been scripted. Not so much for the girl, if any.

I don't think this type of behaviour should be prosecuted exactly, but I would hope that if there were police present that the aggressor would be subjected to a stern talking to. Also, I think that donating to the cause is a bit silly. Having a conversation about it is really enough, I don't need someone to raise my awareness in order to know that this is a problem.

Foxtrol

Kovalev68 wrote: »

Even for after hours I don't think you'll find anyone that disagrees with above.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You underestimate pick-up artists.

You also underestimate the women who have stated on the thread that they believe any man approaching them who they are not interested in is a form of harassment

Foxtrol

denhaagenite wrote: »

I don't think this type of behaviour should be prosecuted exactly, but I would hope that if there were police present that the aggressor would be subjected to a stern talking to. Also, I think that donating to the cause is a bit silly. Having a conversation about it is really enough, I don't need someone to raise my awareness in order to know that this is a problem.

I've seen police do this when they've observed the actions themselves. If they don't see it first hand it's very hard to prove anything, it becomes he said/she said, 'I was shouting at my friend', 'she misheard me', 'it was someone else that shouted it'.

Kovalev68

Foxtrol wrote: »

You also underestimate the women who have stated on the thread that they believe any man approaching them who they are not interested in is a form of harassment

There is certainly nothing wrong with approaching a person to chat her up, flirt with or ask out, but once a they clearly state their disinterest it is time to move on.

Foxtrol

Kovalev68 wrote: »

There is certainly nothing wrong with approaching a person to chat her up, flirt with or ask out, but once a they clearly state their disinterest it is time to move on.

That's not what several posters have said here.

It's what makes this whole thing difficult as each person has different lines and even a given person could have different lines at a given time or depending on who is making the approach (hot vs ugly).

For example, some might say it's harassment when a someone tries to buy them a drink and asks again when they say no at first, while others might want them to buy them a drink one but they always refuse things when they're first offered (actually a very Irish thing).

People aren't mind readers so on the lower end of this apparent 'harassment' there's quite a lot of overreaction.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I won't be going to too much effort, but for you to say that the reasonable person is a completely null position, when it's a defined term in common, criminal and contract law, shows you have a very poor understanding of the law. This is just basic stuff. The 1997 law referring to harassment requires that it is persistent harassment by an individual upon an individual. Street harassment doesn't meet that standard.

It's a null position for your opinion - as you stated

One eyed Jack wrote:

This seems to be the entire core of your discussion. You say street harassment is not antisocial behaviour, yet that's exactly how it is defined by most reasonable people. Where we go from there, I really don't know what else to tell you, as you seem to want to reinterpret laws to suit you the individual rather than us as a society.

You Claim above that Most Reasonable People belive that "street harassment is not antisocial behaviour". That is not any law - that is YOUR opinion. Stop trying to claim righteousness by proxy please.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not as serious as other crimes, which is why it's not criminal behaviour. It's categorised as antisocial behaviour. You consider street harassment to be serious enough to criminalise the behaviour, but a reasonable person doesn't.

For clarification 'Street' harassment is not defined anywhere under the current criminal code - hence this discussion - get it? Again it's YOUR opinion as to its seriousness or otherwise. Where is it classified as 'anti-social behaviour'? Please provide references ok? I see you are appealing to your view of the MRP even though you ignore the definition of harassment as given in the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. Interesting that. Anyway for your information nowhere did I state that I wished to 'crimalise' this type of behaviour. Another presumption on your part.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point wasn't that street harassment is acceptable behaviour, my point was that most people don't particularly care enough about it to get too worked up about it to campaign for the behaviour to be criminalised.

Non sequitur ... Again you are making a sweeping statement full of generalisations ... "Most People" "don't particularly care'. Please do stop trying to pretend you are the voice of the 'people' :rolleyes:

Iranoutofideas

beks101 wrote: »

Or maybe everything isn't actually black or white and there's a difference between positive male attention and street harassment?

I'm a woman and I like being appreciated for my looks as much as the next person. I like being checked out or smiled at or approached by someone in a respectful and mannerly way and I'll never shoot someone down for doing those things.

What I don't like is being yelled at, aggressively approached, accosted and hounded for not responding in the way I am expected to respond (i.e 'thank you for crossing my personal boundaries and interrupting me so rudely, please, do take my number'), intimate body parts ogled and commented upon, and generally intimidated by overtly sexual language.

I meant in relation to how this is being discussed, particularly in the US. In fairness I should have made that clear and I didn't.

I don't endorse harassment in any form.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

Stop trying to claim righteousness by proxy please.

You're just taking the piss now surely?

The rest of your post just isn't worth entertaining, I've been over it with you at least five times now and you continue to split hairs and misunderstand basic legal principles and statutes.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The rest of your post just isn't worth entertaining, I've been over it with you at least five times now and you continue to split hairs and misunderstand basic legal principles and statutes.

Good grief -that is funny enough to merit howls of laughter. Not only are you claiming a panoply of support for your various arguments but you are now also claiming superior legal expertise on all such matters. Thanks! but I really do thinks that about sums it up ... Good night

Frito

Foxtrol wrote: »

People aren't mind readers so on the lower end of this apparent 'harassment' there's quite a lot of overreaction.

Perspective has a good deal to do with it I think. If you're on the receiving end you might think there's quite a lot of self-entitled people not taking no for an answer.

tomleykis

There was a guy on CNN arguing this video with two women and he completely destroyed them.

Foxtrol

Frito wrote: »

Perspective has a good deal to do with it I think. If you're on the receiving end you might think there's quite a lot of self-entitled people not taking no for an answer.

If you quoted the rest of my post then you'd see that I'm agreeing that perspective is important but the problem is that everyone's perspective is so varied that just because someone makes you feel uncomfortable at a given moment they haven't automatically done something wrong.

People simply aren't mind readers so when dealing with the lower end of this so called 'harassment' there has to be some understanding that unless you want to lock yourself away things out in the world will make you feel uncomfortable at times. This is the case for both sexes and for both reacting in some outraged way when faced with it is just feeding into the vicious cycle that I posted about earlier in the thread.

smoking_kills

tomleykis wrote: »

There was a guy on CNN arguing this video with two women and he completely destroyed them.

Do you have a link?

newport2

tomleykis wrote: »

There was a guy on CNN arguing this video with two women and he completely destroyed them.

This?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HI4DC18wCg#t=475

If this is the one, I disagree. As a man, I think he totally lost the debate.

PopePalpatine

tomleykis wrote: »

There was a guy on CNN arguing this video with two women and he completely destroyed them.

Oh, you mean the arsehole pick-up artist? Did you come here from r/TheRedPill by any chance?

secondrowgal

Holy cow!! "Carry a gun!"!! Really!! That's the solution... sheesh...

Kovalev68

newport2 wrote: »

If this is the one, I disagree. As a man, I think he totally lost the debate.

As an Earthling I think he won it, but I wouldn't agree with all his points.

One eyed Jack

Kovalev68 wrote: »

As an Earthling I think he won it, but I wouldn't agree with all his points.

Three of them were as bad as each other really, they kept cutting across each other, shouting to make their voices heard, interrupting each other, and simply rolling their eyes and making childish facial expressions when they didn't agree with another person's point of view.

It was a master class in how NOT to have a civil discussion really. I knew it wasn't going to get any better after the first few seconds when the clip was being shown and the woman said "I live this every day, this is...", and the man interjected with "Nice! Nice!" :rolleyes:

FTA69

tomleykis wrote: »

There was a guy on CNN arguing this video with two women and he completely destroyed them.

I don't know what interview you were watching but your man made a bloody tit of himself.

DoYouEvenLift

newport2 wrote: »

This?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HI4DC18wCg#t=475

If this is the one, I disagree. As a man, I think he totally lost the debate.

Same. I agree with him saying that if the men were all good looking they'd accept it though, but the whole "debate" they were all just smiling and laughing like giddy kids, especially him. Guess it still beats FOX debates, bunch of idiots shouting over one another and not being allowed to freely speak and deliver points.

ash23

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Same. I agree with him saying that if the men were all good looking they'd accept it though

I call shennanigans. I don't agree with that at all. As a woman, if I'm not interested in getting chatted up on the street or in a shop or cafe, what the guy looks like has nothing to do with it. I'm just trying to get back to work/get groceries/have my lunch.

Also, a woman who is not available won't want the attention either. Truthfully if I'm purposefully walking somewhere and I get a "hey sexy" I won't even look at the guy long enough to see what he looks like.

It's very different if you're in a bar or club than if you're just walking around minding your own business. Do you notice or remember every single person you pass on the street or every chugger who approaches you?

DoYouEvenLift

ash23 wrote: »

I call shennanigans. I don't agree with that at all. As a woman, if I'm not interested in getting chatted up on the street or in a shop or cafe, what the guy looks like has nothing to do with it. I'm just trying to get back to work/get groceries/have my lunch.

Also, a woman who is not available won't want the attention either. Truthfully if I'm purposefully walking somewhere and I get a "hey sexy" I won't even look at the guy long enough to see what he looks like.

It's very different if you're in a bar or club than if you're just walking around minding your own business. Do you notice or remember every single person you pass on the street or every chugger who approaches you?

I would if they were hot as fuk. Everyone would. Men and women. Single or in a relationship. Not implying anything needs to come of it, however. And if someone says they'd react the same to an average or below average person 'harassing' them to an absolute top tier, 10/10 winner of the genetic lottery then I'll call shenanigans on that too. No matter how unavailable or unwilling to receive attention someone is, they WILL react positively to someone who they find extremely attractive if they happen to catch their eye and especially if that person is openly giving them compliments/attention.


There will be parodies of this on YouTube too, I can feel it lol