Anti #MeToo letter defends men's right to 'steal a kiss'

wench

The questions were fine, the sarcasm was the problem.

I used to regularly go to parks when my living arrangements didn't include outside space.

Over that time a number of men would have sat beside me and tried to start a conversation.
Most would take "sorry, i'm not interested" for an answer.
Some wouldn't, would sit much too close, and scootch along if I tried to open up a gap.
Some of those would also try to follow along if I got up to leave.

And a small subset of those would be the four who took it to the next level and started the grabbing and attempted kissing.

I don't read in parks any more.

Happy now?

wench

wench wrote: »

Happy now?

Ecstatic.

The sarcasm only entered towards the end. You really need to get past this victim mentality. Questioning your posts is not an attack on you.

GingerLily

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ecstatic.

The sarcasm only entered towards the end. You really need to get past this victim mentality. Questioning your posts is not an attack on you.

That's just so condescending....

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ecstatic.

The sarcasm only entered towards the end. You really need to get past this victim mentality. Questioning your posts is not an attack on you.

Nice. Say you don't believe what she's talking about happens often, and when she clarifies that actually it's pretty often, play the woman and not the ball.

It's been constant in this debate.

"These things happen"

"Ah that doesn't happen, or only super rarely."

"Well these are the times it happened to me"

"Ok but now the issue is stop being so annoying and going on about the thing I questioned you about"

SCOOP 64

wench wrote: »

The questions were fine, the sarcasm was the problem.

I used to regularly go to parks when my living arrangements didn't include outside space.

Over that time a number of men would have sat beside me and tried to start a conversation.
Most would take "sorry, i'm not interested" for an answer.
Some wouldn't, would sit much too close, and scootch along if I tried to open up a gap.
Some of those would also try to follow along if I got up to leave.

And a small subset of those would be the four who took it to the next level and started the grabbing and attempted kissing.

I don't read in parks any more.

Happy now?

What parks do you read in
Take it it was daylight hours not 3 in the morning:pac:

wench

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

What parks do you read in
Take it it was daylight hours not 3 in the morning:pac:

Just normal city parks, in the middle of the day with plenty of people around.

B0jangles

Alisha Faint Shiner wrote: »

Nice. Say you don't believe what she's talking about happens often, and when she clarifies that actually it's pretty often, play the woman and not the ball.

It's been constant in this debate.

"These things happen"

"Ah that doesn't happen, or only super rarely."

"Well these are the times it happened to me"

"Ok but now the issue is stop being so annoying and going on about the thing I questioned you about"

Check the post history - Klaz is a big fan of approaching women in public places so he's understandably defensive when a woman who is regularly approached talks about the negative effect such approaches have on her life.

GingerLily

GingerLily wrote: »

That's just so condescending....

Yup. Intentionally so.

Alisha Faint Shiner wrote: »

Nice. Say you don't believe what she's talking about happens often, and when she clarifies that actually it's pretty often, play the woman and not the ball.

She started by saying that men grabbing her breasts happened more often than I thought. She then moved to talking about being harassed in a park. I asked questions about both to see if they were connected.

I said I was skeptical of the claim of men grabbing her breasts in a park. Which I am.

Nothing I said was targeted at her personally, and each question sought clarification on her original statement, which was very vague... and siimply expected us to accept it on face value.

It's been constant in this debate.

That we should query vague statements of abuse/harassment and seek some details? Gosh... how terrible of us! And yes, that is sarcasm.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

Check the post history - Klaz is a big fan of approaching women in public places so he's understandably defensive when a woman who is regularly approached talks about the negative effect such approaches have on her life.

For shame! That a man would approach a woman in a public setting, and talk to her.

Unless you're trying to suggest something else of which you have no evidence whatsoever? :rolleyes:

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

For shame! That a man would approach a woman in a public setting, and talk to her.

Unless you're trying to suggest something else of which you have no evidence whatsoever? :rolleyes:

Absolutely not suggesting anything further; I'm pointing out that you engage in a perfectly legal habit which many women find unpleasant and intrusive.

Other women do not find it unpleasant and intrusive which is presumably why you do it.

You seem to find it extremely difficult to accept that your hobby has any negative consequences.

The poster above described how being repeatedly approached by guys when she was just trying to read in a park has meant that she just doesn't read outside any more. That is a negative consequence of a hobby like yours.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

Absolutely not suggesting anything further; I'm pointing out that you engage in a perfectly legal habit which many women find unpleasant and intrusive.

No, you're assuming that women find the manner of my approaches unpleasant and intrusive regardless of what I say on the matter. It didn't matter whether I was polite, unassuming, or backed off the instant of a refusal or dismissal, you stuck to the idea that it could be unpleasant and intrusive.

You didn't get the support you wanted on that previous thread. I'm not getting into that discussion again.

The poster above described how being repeatedly approached by guys when she was just trying to read in a park has meant that she just doesn't read outside any more. That is a negative consequence of a hobby like yours.

Although she did start by claiming that men were grabbing her breasts, and then it turned to the example of being harassed in the park. Which is fair enough. I don't agree with how those men behaved.

But I do think we should be able to query posts like these to determine what happened, how often it happens and where it happens. Rather than simply accepting the statement.

^^^
Um, I'm staying well away from this part.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you're assuming that women find the manner of my approaches unpleasant and intrusive regardless of what I say on the matter. It didn't matter whether I was polite, unassuming, or backed off the instant of a refusal or dismissal, you stuck to the idea that it could be unpleasant and intrusive.

You didn't get the support you wanted on that previous thread. I'm not getting into that discussion again.


Although she did start by claiming that men were grabbing her breasts, and then it turned to the example of being harassed in the park. Which is fair enough. I don't agree with how those men behaved.

I think it was thoroughly explained to you the last time, but let's try again:

No matter how well-intentioned, civilized and polite you are, the women you approach have no way of knowing whether you're a nice guy or one of the bad ones; the ones that won't take 'no' for an answer, the ones who'll start following them, the ones who'll make a grab at them.

No matter how good your intentions are, you are still probably making quite a few women very uncomfortable by what you do.

Why is this so hard to acknowledge?

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

Why is this so hard to acknowledge?

Because I have never had this experience of my own encounters. I'm a very polite person. I can only take responsibility for my own behavior.

Is there a range of behavior which will make a woman uncomfortable? Yup. And most men know what this behavior is and seek to avoid doing so. Some men don't care and will behave badly... but I'm not going to take personal responsibility for them.

No matter how good your intentions are, you are still probably making quite a few women very uncomfortable by what you do.

Just as there is a range of behavior that will make a woman uncomfortable... there are plenty of alternative types of behavior that does not.

And we keep coming back to this possibility. Around and around in a circle. You believe that possibility is all important. I believe that men can speak to a woman without making her uncomfortable. My own experience points to the truth of this statement. Your experiences are probably different.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

If a man I don't know starts talking to me unprompted, absolutely my guard is up to some degree. I've had several very unpleasant experiences with men who began the encounter firmly in the zone of polite behaviour and then it escalated.

GingerLily

Alisha Faint Shiner wrote: »

If a man I don't know starts talking to me unprompted, absolutely my guard is up to some degree. I've had several very unpleasant experiences with men who began the encounter firmly in the zone of polite behaviour and then it escalated.

Exactly, it's not that we want to be cynical, but life experiences has taught us to keep our guard up.
I'm not chastising men who approach women unexpectedly, I'm just defending women who have been conditioned to be somewhat hostile.

strandroad

Alisha Faint Shiner wrote: »

If a man I don't know starts talking to me unprompted, absolutely my guard is up to some degree. I've had several very unpleasant experiences with men who began the encounter firmly in the zone of polite behaviour and then it escalated.

I wouldn't say "starts talking to me" (bus stops chats are fine after all), I'd say "goes out of his way to approach me to strike up a conversation about nothing" but I'd be inclined to agree. They might escalate, I have such experiences, but even if they don't I don't feel like it's somehow my duty to be accommodating. It does make you analyse the situation and it spoils your mood if you have to bow out or leave.

Same for "compliments" aka catcalling. I had guys follow me, and I have friends who were followed and confronted after they were catcalled. I can take a "have a nice day" and return it, I don't want to hear "compliments": I don't need street validation, and I know that they might turn into something else easily enough.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

strandroad wrote: »

I wouldn't say "starts talking to me" (bus stops chats are fine after all), I'd say "gets out of his way to approach me to strike up a conversation about nothing" but I'd be inclined to agree. They might escalate, I have such experiences, but even if they don't I don't feel like it's somehow my duty to be accommodating. It does make you analyse the situation and it spoils your mood if you have to bow out or leave.

Ah yeah I mean you're stood beside someone at the bar or waiting for a bus, grand. But reading in the park, have earphones in, sat in the pub on your phone, trying to walk down the goddamn street, definitely I'll initially be wary. I work customer facing roles too and unfortunately there is a balance you have to strike there, you can't be too friendly, particularly with men 40+.

I'm making this all sound very bleak and it's not, I'm in my late twenties now so closing in on 20 years of dealing with unwanted male attention, you get used to it, you get better at it and it gets easier, it's just second nature now. The experiences themselves I can brush off, the self-serving condescending dismissal of such experiences does rather grate though.

Alisha Faint Shiner

Alisha Faint Shiner wrote: »

the self-serving condescending dismissal of such experiences does rather grate though.

Except there was no dismissal of experiences.

I didn't dismiss anyone's experience (Not sure how I was being self-serving by doing so either), nor did I seek in any way to defend the behavior of the men involved. I asked a number of questions to clarify her story.

It seems like you can't question a female poster about her posts on harassment or abuse. Unless you accept her claims exactly as stated, then you're dismissing them. Somehow.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except there was no dismissal of experiences.

I didn't dismiss anyone's experience (Not sure how I was being self-serving by doing so either), nor did I seek in any way to defend the behavior of the men involved. I asked a number of questions to clarify her story.

It seems like you can't question a female poster about her posts on harassment or abuse. Unless you accept her claims exactly as stated, then you're dismissing them. Somehow.

"I'm sceptical" and "that seems unlikely" are questions, are they?

strandroad

Alisha Faint Shiner wrote: »

The experiences themselves I can brush off, the self-serving condescending dismissal of such experiences does rather grate though.

I completely agree. This is also what I find sets the really decent guys apart - they acknowledge that we meet with situations often enough to be wary. It's not on them to fix the creeps, but it's on them not to demand we ignore them and are accommodating to everyone.

Alisha Faint Shiner

Alisha Faint Shiner wrote: »

"I'm sceptical" and "that seems unlikely" are questions, are they?

Nope. But there are questions in my post.

Skeptical just means that I'd like more information as to what happened. Anyway, the original statement changed from her breasts being grabbed, to being harassed in the park. Different situations, hence, the questions and the skepticism.

wench

Your first reply to me had a question, after that you implied I was lying when my response didn't conform to your notion that this only happens in nightclubs.
And my story didn't change, I elaborated that the breast grabbing was an escalation of the normal background level of harassment in parks.

Oranage2

Some women feel uncomfortable by a man simply looking at them.

strandroad

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. But there are questions in my post.

Skeptical just means that I'd like more information as to what happened. Anyway, the original statement changed from her breasts being grabbed, to being harassed in the park. Different situations, hence, the questions and the skepticism.

You sound so sheltered. I had a man try and grab my crotch as he was passing me in Iveagh Gardens of all places. Must have been playing some sort of a points game with himself I guess. Looked like an ordinary office guy btw. I'm aging out of the bracket now but there were so many small incidents over the years they just become noise in my mind.

Returning to Deneuve & Co's letter, I should consider them to be an opportunity to explore my liberation, like they instruct women who have someone rub against them in the metro.

looksee

I think maybe Klas is assuming that any woman sitting reading in a park is actually waiting to be seduced. She would not, he seems to think, be sitting in a public place on her own if she did not want to be approached by an expert seduction artist to charm her. And he is undoubtedly that expert - which seems creepy to me, but everyone is different.

Possibly most women would be a bit suspicious of being randomly approached while she was doing something as asexual as reading a book. They may have a sense that they would be prefer to be approached, or indeed to approach, while doing something that suggested a mutual interest, which might indicate at least a possibility of like minds. In a nightclub it is generally understood that approach is tacitly being invited, sitting in a park not so much.

Skyfarm

sweet Jesus above.. to say that its madness how people are responding to humans talking to humans is an understatement.

twill

I wonder if this letter is a statement of class solidarity rather than a reflection on sexual mores. The petitions in favour of Roman Polanski - which initially had the backing of large numbers of Hollywood and French film industry heavyweights - argued for him on the basis of his artistic achievements. I've read accounts by actresses who have stated that sexual harassment and degradation are simply commonplace and endemic in the film industry. Nor are its victims just women, as the Polanski case shows, and several men have also come out to tell of abuse inflicted on them, such as Johnathon Schaech's statement about Franco Zeffirelli.

The letter doesn't seem to be about the danger of accusations on social media. I think there is an argument to be made there, although it has to be in the context of the power of some in the film industry to silence their accusers. The main thrust seems to be the "right" to make unwanted sexual advances. Does this refer to private individuals or is it an argument for the status quo in the film industry, an industry that some of the signatories have benefited from?

looksee

looksee wrote: »

I think maybe Klas is assuming that any woman sitting reading in a park is actually waiting to be seduced.

You're the one assuming things. I never suggested anything close to that. Perhaps you could quote me as to where I did?

Ficheall

looksee wrote: »

In a nightclub it is generally understood that approach is tacitly being invited

What if they're just there to dance and see their friends, you lecherous chauvinist pig?*



*looksee is lovely.

pitifulgod

Akrasia wrote: »

Anyone who has ever watched James Bond movies without being outraged is a hypocrite if they get outraged by this

I enjoy Bond films and books. It's pretty accepted that he's a misogynistic prick. If a person behaved like that in real life, I would view it as unacceptable. I also enjoy films such as American Psycho, I don't approve of serial killers as a result though...

Roger Hassenforder

looksee wrote: »

In a nightclub it is generally understood that approach is tacitly being invited, sitting in a park not so much.

But only if they're attractive.

pitifulgod

strandroad wrote: »

You sound so sheltered. I had a man try and grab my crotch as he was passing me in Iveagh Gardens of all places. Must have been playing some sort of a points game with himself I guess. Looked like an ordinary office guy btw. I'm aging out of the bracket now but there were so many small incidents over the years they just become noise in my mind.

Returning to Deneuve & Co's letter, I should consider them to be an opportunity to explore my liberation, like they instruct women who have someone rub against them in the metro.

As a man, who really doesn't face this sort of stuff tbh. If anyone started approaching me at random, I'd view with similar suspicion tbh. I tend to get easily anxious too so would be highly uncomfortable. Nobody has any idea of the circumstance of an individual either so it can be greatly unwanted to face such approaches. Depressing that men in particular don't tend to respect boundaries.

Ficheall

pitifulgod wrote: »

Depressing that men in particular don't tend to respect boundaries.

Isn't it generally men in particular who instigate the majority of all approaches, both successful and otherwise? I don't have any stats on this, so am open to correction, but...

pitifulgod

Ficheall wrote: »

Isn't it generally men in particular who instigate the majority of all approaches, both successful and otherwise? I don't have any stats on this, so am open to correction, but...

I don't tend to assume that a random woman in a park is looking for a date.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

You're the one assuming things. I never suggested anything close to that. Perhaps you could quote me as to where I did?

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you're assuming that women find the manner of my approaches unpleasant and intrusive regardless of what I say on the matter. It didn't matter whether I was polite, unassuming, or backed off the instant of a refusal or dismissal, you stuck to the idea that it could be unpleasant and intrusive.

And indeed it could (be unpleasant and intrusive). You re assuming that your approach is polite and unobtrusive, a woman sitting reading, ignoring all around her, might well see it differently. She could be on her lunch break after a morning of a customer facing job and absolutely does not want to be polite to one more person.

Would you go into a cafe and join a guy at a table who is reading or on his tablet and say 'hi mate, is the book good?'. Why not, if all you want is human contact? What are you hoping to achieve by putting yourself uninvited into someone else's space?

Deleted User wrote: »

Because I have never had this experience of my own encounters. I'm a very polite person. I can only take responsibility for my own behavior.

Is there a range of behavior which will make a woman uncomfortable? Yup. And most men know what this behavior is and seek to avoid doing so.

So women are telling you that this behaviour makes some women uncomfortable, but rather than accept this information you are arguing it and saying that because you are polite you are the exception?

I believe that men can speak to a woman without making her uncomfortable.

Of course they can, I am not sure you understand 'uncomfortable'.

My own experience points to the truth of this statement. Your experiences are probably different.

Can you not see the contradiction in that last sentence?

And just for the record, I agree there is merit in both the French argument and the #metoo argument - the situation is somewhere between the two and one argument does not apply to all women or all men. Both cop-on and awareness of human nature are involved.

I am also struggling to see how reading in the park could escalate to inappropriate touching and stalking so quickly and frequently, but that is not the point of the argument.

Cocobolo55

looksee wrote: »

And indeed it could (be unpleasant and intrusive). You re assuming that your approach is polite and unobtrusive, a woman sitting reading, ignoring all around her, might well see it differently. She could be on her lunch break after a morning of a customer facing job and absolutely does not want to be polite to one more person.

Would you go into a cafe and join a guy at a table who is reading or on his tablet and say 'hi mate, is the book good?'. Why not, if all you want is human contact? What are you hoping to achieve by putting yourself uninvited into someone else's space?


So women are telling you that this behaviour makes some women uncomfortable, but rather than accept this information you are arguing it and saying that because you are polite you are the exception?


Of course they can, I am not sure you understand 'uncomfortable'.


Can you not see the contradiction in that last sentence?

And just for the record, I agree there is merit in both the French argument and the #metoo argument - the situation is somewhere between the two and one argument does not apply to all women or all men. Both cop-on and awareness of human nature are involved.

I am also struggling to see how reading in the park could escalate to inappropriate touching and stalking so quickly and frequently, but that is not the point of the argument.

An approach might be obtrusive or it might not be, so what, as an adult it should be expected that you have the capability to tell someone you are not interested in talking to them. By that logic you think nobody should ever talk to another person because it might be obtrusive. Better not say hello to my neighbour, there is no way to be sure I am not being obtrusive. :pac:

If you had a million euro cheque to give to a random person of your choice, would you avoid giving it to a woman on a park bench in case you were obtrusive?

looksee

looksee wrote: »

And indeed it could (be unpleasant and intrusive). You re assuming that your approach is polite and unobtrusive, a woman sitting reading, ignoring all around her, might well see it differently. She could be on her lunch break after a morning of a customer facing job and absolutely does not want to be polite to one more person.

Any quotes to suggest that I have approached a woman in a park who is reading a book or listening to music? A person who obviously has little desire to be disturbed?

You said: "I think maybe Klas is assuming that any woman sitting reading in a park is actually waiting to be seduced."

You have nothing to back this up.

Can you not see the contradiction in that last sentence?

I can see that she had negative experiences with men approaching her. Alas, it seems that the women I've approached cannot have positive ones.

I am also struggling to see how reading in the park could escalate to inappropriate touching and stalking so quickly and frequently, but that is not the point of the argument.

Strangely enough, I originally thought that was the argument, however it's now that I didn't immediately accept what she said/not ask further questions.... And that I don't admit that my approaching a woman is offensive.

Stonedpilot

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Grab them back by the crotch. You'd have ride 7 nights a week.

Women can be quite hypocritical when it comes to this. It's a case of do as I say and not as I do

AudreyHepburn

I have to be honest here and say I wholeheartedly agree that there is witch hunt happening at the moment in Hollywood. It seems to be the case now that any man having anything at all to with the film industry is fair game and that any interaction with a woman is in danger of being labeled as something it isn't.

It's very unpleasant to watch frankly and I really do think many of my fellow women could do worse than dropping the victimized front they've adopted and being a little less sensitive. All this recent witch hunt is doing is making little of real cases of sexual assault and demonizing men as a whole.

A brush against you, a simple touch, a dirty comment or text -these are not in my opinion enough to make a man into a sexual deviant or to ruin his career and life over.

Cocobolo55

Anytime you initiate contact with a stranger you never know 100% if they want that contact, so what, welcome to being a human and to socialising. For some of you in your basement that might be a scary prospect, but I recommend going out and meeting people in real life and taking the "risk" to meet people and initiate human connection face to face.

s7ryf3925pivug

Who has been labelled something for just trying to kiss someone?

Have any of the sexual assault perpetrators been arrested?

There's a lot of hypocrisy where these people are suddenly outraged by something they've accepted for decades. Not a witch hunt though.

AudreyHepburn

Brady Shapely Pinball wrote: »

Who has been labelled something for just trying to kiss someone?

Have any of the sexual assault perpetrators been arrested?

There's a lot of hypocrisy where these people are suddenly outraged by something they've accepted for decades. Not a witch hunt though.

I beg to differ - it is witch hunt when there's a different man every other day being accused and some of the accusations are about such minor things as texts.

Liam Neeson mentioned a DJ who put his hand on a friend's back to comfort while she was telling a difficult and tragic story on his station and was later done for sexual assault because of it.

How is that not a witch hunt?

AudreyHepburn

I feel I should point out here, before anyone accuses me of being anti women or pro sexual assault etc, that I am a woman and that I have had dirty things said to me, I have had men grab my bum and touch in ways that could be considered inappropriate whilst out socializing and while it can be uncomfortable sometimes I would never go shopping anyone to the Gardai for it.

There's nothing to be gained by ruining a man's life over a dirty text or a pinch on the bum imo.

s7ryf3925pivug

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I beg to differ - it is witch hunt when there's a different man every other day being accused and some of the accusations are about such minor things as texts.

Liam Neeson mentioned a DJ who put his hand on a friend's back to comfort while she was telling a difficult and tragic story on his station and was later done for sexual assault because of it.

How is that not a witch hunt?

Because he wasn't done for sexual assault - no arrest in the news. He was fired because of multiple complaints about multiple incidents. You've given a biased retelling of his friend's biased retelling of his own version of events. The details of the complaints have not been made public.

No arrests then? No single instance of someone being labelled for just trying to kiss someone?

kylith

Cocobolo55 wrote: »

An approach might be obtrusive or it might not be, so what, as an adult it should be expected that you have the capability to tell someone you are not interested in talking to them.

And yet just about every woman can tell you a story where they rebuffed a man who became aggressive.

An adult should be able to take being rejected without calling someone a bitch. An adult should be aware enough to know that someone reading or listening to music probably doesn't want to be chatted up, or should at least be able to spot the signs that they are bothering someone.

kylith

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I feel I should point out here, before anyone accuses me of being anti women or pro sexual assault etc, that I am a woman and that I have had dirty things said to me, I have had men grab my bum and touch in ways that could be considered inappropriate whilst out socializing and while it can be uncomfortable sometimes I would never go shopping anyone to the Gardai for it.

There's nothing to be gained by ruining a man's life over a dirty text or a pinch on the bum imo.

But there is a lot to be gained by everyone being very clear on the fact that doing that is not an acceptable way to behave.

AudreyHepburn

kylith wrote: »

But there is a lot to be gained by everyone being very clear on the fact that doing that is not an acceptable way to behave.

I never said it was and I think we're all quite clear on that. I said it's not worth ruining a man's life over.

Cocobolo55

kylith wrote: »

And yet just about every woman can tell you a story where they rebuffed a man who became aggressive.

An adult should be able to take being rejected without calling someone a bitch. An adult should be aware enough to know that someone reading or listening to music probably doesn't want to be chatted up, or should at least be able to spot the signs that they are bothering someone.

I agree wholeheartedly, thats why I always say people have the right to approach, but the person being approached has the right to reject the approach.

If you had a million euro cheque to give to a stranger at random would you avoid doing it in case you were bothering them?

Would you avoid saying hello to your neighbour in case you were bothering them?

AudreyHepburn

Brady Shapely Pinball wrote: »

Because he wasn't done for sexual assault - no arrest in the news. He was fired because of multiple complaints about multiple incidents. You've given a biased retelling of his friend's biased retelling of his own version of events. The details of the complaints have not been made public.

No arrests then? No single instance of someone being labelled for just trying to kiss someone?

The DJ in question lost his job for comforting his friend. I have no reason doubt LN on this so I am taking it as truth.

How can you possibly tell me that was right?