Almost all young women in the UK have been sexually harassed [MOD WARNING 1st POST]

Stateofyou

Deleted User wrote: »

That you would use "toxic masculinity" as some sort of go-to answer speaks volumes in itself. As for cultural conditioning, you've missed the point. We already have social norms which teach politeness and that's the reason that most men don't behave in the manner described. Mistakes and misconceptions happen. When people are willing to take the worst possible interpretation for a honest mistake, then we're in for a world of trouble. As evidenced by many of the opinions on this thread.

As for swapping code for conditioning, it doesn't hold with the context of your post. You sought to reinterpret my post as being "I think that is just code for 'I can't be as sexist/racist/homophobic/sexually harassing as I want to be and I don't want to do the hard work to change,' thinking". Your first line in response to my post.

As for my considering a differing opinion, sure, I do. You see, I'm a very respectful person, aware of personal space, and was raised to believe that it's morally wrong to make other people uncomfortable. So, the behavior listed in the survey isn't something that I have engaged in, or would want to behave in any situation. It's not something I admire, although I don't agree with many of the sentiments that many posters, like yourself, have expressed, because there's little balance involved, and little consideration for how women, themselves, behave in society.

Instead, all the problems are external.

If you're equating the culture we're all in here that has led to the high rates of sexual harassment and assault to learning manners, then you have certainly revealed you have a lot of work to do.

Instead of dismissing the lessons to be learned from the effects on society of toxic masculinity, to decide to put it in quotes and call it a "go to answer..." Whatever that means... You're clearly not open to anything anyone else has to say in offer to what could be underlying issues, because you have "manners."

It's painfully clear how little self growth has happened and is revealed by some posts. There's literally no open-mindedness or holding space for anyone else's opinion that I can see from you. You argue against anything and everything. You have equated what you believe to be who you are, to seemingly cover all men and then victim blame women. You should focus on the results of the survey, which is the real lived experience by women, instead of dismissing it because you don't see yourself as the problem. You can't dismiss a lived experience by a majority of women. Well, I can see you're trying very hard to do that.

"Problems are external." How about acknowledge that we're all living in the same culture and we all have a responsibility to learn, grow, change behaviours and be aware of our complicity in that culture. Because as long as you're denying it like you are, you remain complicit.

Stateofyou

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

On the racism front, look at what happened Sharon Osbourne. But 'progress' shure...

Ehhh.... because one woman still has a ways to go with her personal growth (as we all do) you're trying to argue there's been no 'progress?'

That makes zero sense. Less than zero sense. I've already described here quite a few times all the progress being made, and one individuals' journey does not negate that. Of course we still have far to go, we're not where we were even 2 years ago. Or 150 years ago. I can't even wrap my mind around how you came to that conclusion.

cee_jay

This video highlights one issue women have been trying to raise in relation to sexual harrassment.

https://twitter.com/sexysadspice/status/1371490789344305157?s=20

Women are not "just a piece of ass" or "just a sex object". Women should be able to wear whatever they want without being reduced to this. It does not give a man the right to treat them as a sex object.
No man I know would think like this, it is definitely not all men, but it highlights that there are men who do think like this.

Faith

Stateofyou wrote: »

Look everyone has something to learn here. All of us have bias and a lot of it we're blinded to. We can't be so sensitive to being called out on something but maybe be open to learning from it and doing better. No one is perfect and no one has nothing to learn. I have learned and realised things I've said, done or kept quiet about it the past were problematic. Once you know you do better and that's all any of us can do.

100%. I couldn't agree more.

I have the utmost respect for anyone who learns from their mistakes, and is open to that. If a guy said to me "I used to shout at women in public, ask them for a blowjob or whatever. I thought I was hilarious, and I really thought they would think I was funny too. But even if they didn't, it didn't matter because my friends laughed and I felt good. Now I realise how sh*tty that behaviour was, how frightening it must have been for the women. I can't change what I did in the past, but I can change my actions in the future, which includes calling out my mates when I see them doing the same kind of thing", I would have incredible respect for him.

No person in this world has ever not made a mistake, or done something without realising or caring about the impact on another person. We're not asking for perfection on this thread, we're asking for capacity to reflect and learn when problematic behaviours are highlighted.

Denying and shutting down the conversation may be a sign of fear and shame. What would happen if you accepted the survey as fact? How would that change your perceptions of the world and yourself? Being open to the conversation is a sign of courage.

Speaking of bias, Harvard University have implicit bias tests available that allow you to investigate whether you hold any implicit biases yourself: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

There's not one on misogyny, misandry or sexism, but it's still a useful exercise to explore whether your explicit biases (or lack thereof) match up with your implicit ones.

Quantum Erasure

Stateofyou wrote: »

Ehhh.... because one woman still has a ways to go with her personal growth (as we all do) you're trying to argue there's been no 'progress?'

That makes zero sense. Less than zero sense. I've already described here quite a few times all the progress being made, and one individuals' journey does not negate that. Of course we still have far to go, we're not where we were even 2 years ago. Or 150 years ago. I can't even wrap my mind around how you came to that conclusion.

The point is she's been branded a racist just for asking for evidence of Piers Morgan's racism. No evidence was provided, because there was none, and now she's a racist too just for asking...

I'm sure I've been labeled something in some people's minds, just for looking for where that 97% stat came from, and actually providing links to where I think they got it.

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

If you're equating the culture we're all in here that has led to the high rates of sexual harassment and assault to learning manners, then you have certainly revealed you have a lot of work to do.

Instead of dismissing the lessons to be learned from the effects on society of toxic masculinity, to decide to put it in quotes and call it a "go to answer..." Whatever that means... You're clearly not open to anything anyone else has to say in offer to what could be underlying issues, because you have "manners."

It's painfully clear how little self growth has happened and is revealed by some posts. There's literally no open-mindedness or holding space for anyone else's opinion that I can see from you. You argue against anything and everything. You have equated what you believe to be who you are, to seemingly cover all men and then victim blame women. You should focus on the results of the survey, which is the real lived experience by women, instead of dismissing it because you don't see yourself as the problem. You can't dismiss a lived experience by a majority of women. Well, I can see you're trying very hard to do that.

"Problems are external." How about acknowledge that we're all living in the same culture and we all have a responsibility to learn, grow, change behaviours and be aware of our complicity in that culture. Because as long as you're denying it like you are, you remain complicit.

Like talking to a wall. You just want to rehash your own points without considering what others have said.

Third time now, that you have reinterpreted, or deflected away from what I've said, just so that you can repeat your own points. Yay.

Quantum Erasure

Faith wrote:

Denying and shutting down the conversation may be a sign of fear and shame. What would happen if you accepted the survey as fact? How would that change your perceptions of the world and yourself? Being open to the conversation is a sign of courage.

all I want is truth. Some don't seem open to that. Im not accepting the survey, as reported, as fact because it's not the truth. Im happy to accept the underlying data, but it's hard to believe that reporting 97% anything was an honest mistake, when it was an answer to a different question, on a different survey...

Speaking of bias, Harvard University have implicit bias tests available that allow you to investigate whether you hold any implicit biases yourself:

I took one of those tests, seems I'm slightly biased in favour of blacks, but then again those tests have been dismissed by some as unscientific...

Faith

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

all I want is truth. Some don't seem open to that.

Okay. So you are open to the truth that a significant majority of women have experienced sexual harassment, but you just reject the reporting of the figure as 97%?

What do you think about the truth then? Do you think society should do something about the level of sexual harassment that women experience?

McGinniesta

97%? Really?

Sounds like bullsh1t

Quantum Erasure

Faith wrote: »

Okay. So you are open to the truth that a significant majority of women have experienced sexual harassment, but you just reject the reporting of the figure as 97%?

Would you say you have ever been sexually harassed by a man?
[This question only contains the answers of female respondents]
GB 18-19 Oct '20
Yes, I have: 52%
No, I have not: 44%

Faith

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Would you say you have ever been sexually harassed by a man?
[This question only contains the answers of female respondents]
GB 18-19 Oct '20
Yes, I have: 52%
No, I have not: 44%

What's your point? What percentage do you think is acceptable? Of all the women in your life, to how many would you say "Yeah, they can be sexually harassed, that's fine".

Eric Cartman

Faith wrote: »

What's your point? What percentage do you think is acceptable? Of all the women in your life, to how many would you say "Yeah, they can be sexually harassed, that's fine".

I dont think anyones saying any amount of it is fine, saying the figure is lower than 97 is not saying the lower figure is alright

tayto lover

Nobody should be subjected to any form of sexual harassment but the thread heading saying “almost all” is ridiculous.

nolivesmatter

cee_jay wrote: »

This video highlights one issue women have been trying to raise in relation to sexual harrassment.

https://twitter.com/sexysadspice/status/1371490789344305157?s=20

Oh great, another tweet trying to make it about race. That's helpful. (I'm not saying you're doing that)

cee_jay wrote: »

Women are not "just a piece of ass" or "just a sex object". Women should be able to wear whatever they want without being reduced to this. It does not give a man the right to treat them as a sex object.
No man I know would think like this, it is definitely not all men, but it highlights that there are men who do think like this.

Of course there are. And there are people who will do things even worse than treat a woman like a sex object. And there always will be. It's not fair but that's the way it is. I'd hope people would acknowledge that and tailor their behavior accordingly to protect themselves.

hatrickpatrick

meeeeh wrote: »

As I predicted men are the real victims here. Now Klaz tell me how were you restricted? What are you not able to do since all this female fascism started? I posted my examples why I think harassment should be unacceptable. Now it's time for you to tell us how life is impacted.

I made a post on it a couple of pages ago. The new, ever changing and ever expanding definitions of sexual harassment (which when you delve into them a bit, are essentially attempts to socially engineer extroverted people into suppressing their personalities) make it extraordinarily stressful to actually approach somebody in real life anymore, because it's literally impossible to tell whether it'll be regarded as inappropriate or not in advance. That's the problem. "Unwanted sexual attention" by itself is an unfair paradigm upon which to build a social movement because nobody can tell whether attention is wanted or unwanted until they've asked - and if asking itself counts as harassment in the case that the answer is no, then what this leads to is the assumption that you just can't approach people in a sexual way, at all, in any circumstances, without the risk of being labelled a creep.

All I was arguing was that if a large number of women want the world to work this way - and maybe they do, and there's nothing wrong with that! - then some other related paradigms also need to change. Namely, the onus must be taken from men to make the first move in initiating a sexual interaction, or else we as a society must essentially agree to a horrifically repressed new paradigm in which we can only approach eachother sexually through the lense of dating apps, being introduced by mutual friends, and so on.

I'm actually not suggesting that either the belief that a man approaching a woman with an overt sexual interest counts as harassment, or the belief that men should make the first move initiating a sexual encounter, are wrong beliefs. They would be beliefs the vast majority of men would disagree with and find extremely depressing, but if they're beliefs the vast majority of women hold, then fair enough, and society should accommodate that.

However, I would suggest that holding both views at the same time is absolutely ludicrous, and that's why this whole issue becomes such a horrific minefield of clusterf*cks. You simply cannot tell men that approaching a woman he finds attractive with a view to coming on to her is now socially unacceptable, AND tell men that they must still make the first move, and that women will sit around waiting to be chased or else leave disappointed even if they like the guy to begin with.

Like it or not, that is what's happening right now. Most young women in my own age group hate making the first move and want lads to do that, going so far as to bemoan how this has become less of a thing in nightclubs and so on in recent years (driven primarily by lads' rising fear of such interactions being seen as bad behaviour) - and decent lads are more and more just not bothering to initiate for the aforementioned reasons, finding it easier to just use an app like Tinder on which everyone already knows that they're on it for the purposes of sexual interaction, where the question of "will she be ok with me hitting on her or will I be regarded as another aggressive statistic if I do it" is pre-empted.

I personally believe that most people don't want to live in that kind of world. Having used such apps for a year because of the ongoing closure of nightlife, I for one find it extraordinarily awkward and depressing compared with meeting people in bars or on dancefloors. But if that's the only solution to this problem, so be it.

I'm just saying, the catch-22 element of this ongoing discussion needs to be acknowledged. For a man to be told "you have to make the first move or the woman of your dreams could fancy the sh!t out of you secretly and never do anything about it", which like it or not, is what we're told by society and by our own female peers, and simultaneously told that even just a casual, lighthearted sexual approach can now be seen as "harassment" in the absence of a crystal ball to read a woman's mind beforehand, is just utterly nonsensical. It will fundamentally result in a withdrawal of sexual interaction from the real world and into online spaces only, and I for one after one year of experiencing it only through Tinder and Bumble, cannot imagine a more dystopian, horrifically unpleasant sounding future.

It's just insane that this aspect of it isn't addressed. At all. We're told that more or less any open sexuality is now considered sexual harassment - but nobody seems willing to answer the simple question of "how do we go about expressing a sexual interest in a way which is acceptable under the newly restricted paradigm?"

For those who are proponents of what I'd call neo-prudishness, I'd honestly be hugely fascinated in the answer to this question. All we have so far is "don't chat women up, ever". Fair enough, but if that's the case, how do people find other people to get with?

Sephiroth_dude

McGinniesta wrote: »

97%? Really?

Sounds like bullsh1t

Do not post in here again.

What is a 'sexual approach '?

nolivesmatter

bubblypop wrote: »

What is a 'sexual approach '?

1123heavy

The biological makeup of men is never going to change, therefore there is only 1 solution and it's that women need to take the appropriate measures.

Women need to stop dressing provocatively in public, they need to avoid walking alone at night and with that they need to be extra careful as to where they are going to be getting drunk.

Until this reality is accepted this is never going to be solved and that is the truth. Does anyone think the policeman who murdered that girl and those like him are going to be turned off by a couple of protests!? Keep dreaming

Galwayguy35

cee_jay wrote: »

This video highlights one issue women have been trying to raise in relation to sexual harrassment.

https://twitter.com/sexysadspice/status/1371490789344305157?s=20

Women are not "just a piece of ass" or "just a sex object". Women should be able to wear whatever they want without being reduced to this. It does not give a man the right to treat them as a sex object.
No man I know would think like this, it is definitely not all men, but it highlights that there are men who do think like this.

No one scares her like white men?

It could just just as easily have been a black or asian saying the same thing.

hatrickpatrick

1123heavy wrote: »

The biological makeup of men is never going to change, therefore there is only 1 solution and it's that women need to take the appropriate measures.

Women need to stop dressing provocatively in public, they need to avoid walking alone at night and with that they need to be extra careful as to where they are going to be getting drunk.

Until this reality is accepted this is never going to be solved and that is the truth. Does anyone think the policeman who murdered that girl and those like him are going to be turned off by a couple of protests!? Keep dreaming

This kind of bullish!t is as bad as the “never express yourself sexually” sh!te currently being directed at men. The solution to this problem cannot be the reintroduction of society-wide sexual repression, FFS. Of either gender.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How would you personally solve the paradox of sexual harassment being defined as “unwanted sexual advances” in the context of statistics like this, and the unfortunate reality that a lad cannot telepathically tell whether a sexual advance is wanted or not before giving it a try?

You're going to have to explain what you mean by sexual advances?
Do you mean approaching women, specifically and just for sex?

Sephiroth_dude

1123heavy wrote: »

The biological makeup of men is never going to change, therefore there is only 1 solution and it's that women need to take the appropriate measures.

Women need to stop dressing provocatively in public, they need to avoid walking alone at night and with that they need to be extra careful as to where they are going to be getting drunk.

Until this reality is accepted this is never going to be solved and that is the truth. Does anyone think the policeman who murdered that girl and those like him are going to be turned off by a couple of protests!? Keep dreaming

Victim blaming is not on, Don't post in here again.

hatrickpatrick

bubblypop wrote: »

You're going to have to explain what you mean by sexual advances?
Do you mean approaching women, specifically and just for sex?

I mean to express any sexual or romantic interest at all. Literally just that. Not sure I can make it any clearer. To express the fact that one fancies another.

In such circumstances, men are expected (by women, I might add, in a very stubborn societal paradigm which refuses to budge) to make the first move. However, under the new definitions of sexual harassment used by this study amongst others, men are also expected to know in advance whether such an advance is going to be reciprocated. Which of course is impossible.

How does one solve this paradox? Because as things stand, it essentially means that nobody can ever meet someone in a public venue again without a mutual acquaintance or something like that. Or a dating app.

I couldn’t tell you how many of my friends relationships would never have happened if it hadn’t been socially acceptable to hit on people in a club or at a concert, for example. But that seems to be the direction these new definitions of harassment are trying to push us in.

Nobody has ever said that chatting up women is sexual harassment.
Literally never.
You keep talking about a sexual approach but then you say romantic approach.
You seem confused.

Approach women the same way, I assume, you always did. With respect. Quite simple.

hatrickpatrick

bubblypop wrote: »

Nobody has ever said that chatting up women is sexual harassment.
Literally never.

Have you read the definitions of sexual harassment, posted several times in this thread, from which the 97% figure quoted in the OP was apparently derived?

[quite]You keep talking about a sexual approach but then you say romantic approach.
You seem confused.[/quote]

It’s the same thing, all that’s different is the intended end game (whether someone is looking for a fling or something more serious). It still involves openly expressing sexual interest as opposed to platonic interest.

Approach women the same way, I assume, you always did. With respect. Quite simple.

So seeing someone you like sitting at the bar in a nightclub or having a dance, and trying to strike up a conversation with one’s interest clear and obvious, would not be considered harassment? Even if you subsequently found out, though you didn’t know at the time, that the person you tried to chat up wasn’t interested in you?

If that’s the case, then “unwanted sexual advances” is a moronically broad term by which to define sexual harassment. It has to be one or the other.

PokeHerKing

I find there a double standard when it comes to all this. Young girls shouting at a lad out for a run might be seen as having a laugh or at the other end maybe considered acting the bollix. But if lads did the same it would be considered sexual harassment across the board.

Same way I've been in multiple social settings from nights out to the work place where a woman has joked about a lad being short or bald, conversely I've only ever witnessed a lad call a girl fat once in a similar setting and by christ was he crucified for it.

I think the fact most women don't see these double standards is why there's such debate on this thread.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So seeing someone you like sitting at the bar in a nightclub or having a dance, and trying to strike up a conversation with one’s interest clear and obvious, would not be considered harassment? Even if you subsequently found out, though you didn’t know at the time, that the person you tried to chat up wasn’t interested.

How would someone trying to chat to you be harassment?
Surely in your life you have tried to chat women up who were not interested? When they let you know they were not interested, I assume you left them alone, and moved in?

FunLover18

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Have you read the definitions of sexual harassment, posted several times in this thread, from which the 97% figure quoted in the OP was apparently derived?

"a conversation turning to sexual subjects"

Are you referring to this definition?

It seems pretty obvious to me that there's a massive difference between a conversation being started out of romantic interest about any topic that may lead to sex at some point down the line and a conversation turning to sexual subjects.

hatrickpatrick

bubblypop wrote: »

How would someone trying to chat to you be harassment?
Surely in your life you have tried to chat women up who were not interested? When they let you know they were not interested, I assume you left them alone, and moved in?

Absolutely. And I never once considered that I was sexually harassing anyone in doing so.

The discourse around the term “sexual harassment” and what it constitutes has, however, become considerably more alarmingly broad in recent years, such that it now genuinely seems that this is considered wrongdoing by a very vocal swathe of commentators, and official documentation. That’s the problem I’m trying to point out.

Take the term “unwanted sexual advances” for instance, which is one of those used in formulating the 97% figure referenced in the OP. Now, if that were refined to “unwanted sexual advances which persist after an initial rebuff”, I would have no further quibble with it. But it isn’t. Ergo, the idea that giving it a go and being shot down still counts as harassment, even if you back off immediately, is the inevitable conclusion. It certainly seems to be what a lot of the opinion pieces on this issue are calling for. But it leaves society in a quandary because, as I’ve said, men are still expected to initiate every sexual interaction of this kind, and women (even those my own age, perhaps surprisingly) do not want to do this, but do want lads to do it.

All I’ve been trying to articulate here is that these two societal paradigms are currently crashing head first into eachother, and I’m curious as to what the solution could be.

hatrickpatrick

FunLover18 wrote: »

"a conversation turning to sexual subjects"

Are you referring to this definition?

It seems pretty obvious to me that there's a massive difference between a conversation being started out of romantic interest about any topic that may lead to sex at some point down the line and a conversation turning to sexual subjects.

Depends entirely on what constitutes a sexual subject. A compliment on one’s appearance or clothing, for example? This is frequently cited as something which is now considered “problematic” in a wide variety of circumstances.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely. And I never once considered that I was sexually harassing anyone in doing so.

The discourse around the term “sexual harassment” and what it constitutes has, however, become considerably more alarmingly broad in recent years, such that it now genuinely seems that this is considered wrongdoing by a very vocal swathe of commentators, and official documentation. That’s the problem I’m trying to point out.

Take the term “unwanted sexual advances” for instance, which is one of those used in formulating the 97% figure referenced in the OP. Now, if that were refined to “unwanted sexual advances which persist after an initial rebuff”, I would have no further quibble with it. But it isn’t. Ergo, the idea that giving it a go and being shot down still counts as harassment, even if you back off immediately, is the inevitable conclusion. It certainly seems to be what a lot of the opinion pieces on this issue are calling for. But it leaves society in a quandary because, as I’ve said, men are still expected to initiate every sexual interaction of this kind, and women (even those my own age, perhaps surprisingly) do not want to do this, but do want lads to do it.

All I’ve been trying to articulate here is that these two societal paradigms are currently crashing head first into eachother, and I’m curious as to what the solution could be.

' Unwanted sexual approach ' does not say to me that a man is chatting me up. 'Unwanted sexual approach ' is just that, someone attempting to touch me, grope me, start talking sexual things to me. That's a sexual approach.

I haven't seen any woman anywhere claiming that men attempting to chat to them is in anyway sexual harassment.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Depends entirely on what constitutes a sexual subject. A compliment on one’s appearance or clothing, for example? This is frequently cited as something which is now considered “problematic” in a wide variety of circumstances.

Walking up to a total stranger and commenting on their appearance is just weird.

Martina1991

1123heavy wrote: »

The biological makeup of men is never going to change, therefore there is only 1 solution and it's that women need to take the appropriate measures.

Women need to stop dressing provocatively in public, they need to avoid walking alone at night and with that they need to be extra careful as to where they are going to be getting drunk.

Until this reality is accepted this is never going to be solved and that is the truth. Does anyone think the policeman who murdered that girl and those like him are going to be turned off by a couple of protests!? Keep dreaming

I ask any man that read this post to ask themselves do they think it's fair that half of the population should have to change they way they dress, act, talk, the routes they take, the places they run/walk, where they park their car etc etc JUST to avoid being afraid or intimidated. Never mind harassed or attacked.

Does anyone think its right for people to live in fear just for being female .

Statistics and semantics aside. This is reality for women. That we have to adapt our lives because "the biological makeup of men is never going to change", so we have to.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

All I’ve been trying to articulate here is that these two societal paradigms are currently crashing head first into eachother, and I’m curious as to what the solution could be.

You’re implying that based upon the results of the survey, you’re concluding that it’s women don’t know the difference between being chatted up, and sexual harassment. The “paradox” you claim exists, is nothing more than an invention of your own imagination to address an issue that doesn’t exist.

jackboy

Martina1991 wrote: »

I ask any man that read this post to ask themselves do they think it's fair that half of the population should have to change they way they dress, act, talk, the routes they take, the places they run/walk, where they park their car etc etc JUST to avoid being afraid or intimidated. Never mind harassed or attacked.

Does anyone think its right for people to live in fear just for being female .

Statistics and semantics aside. This is reality for women. That we have to adapt our lives because "the biological makeup of men is never going to change", so we have to.

It’s not fair but massive progress has been made in recent years. Ireland is now safer for women than most countries in the world. A long way to go but if things keep improving at this pace that will be a success.

FunLover18

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Depends entirely on what constitutes a sexual subject. A compliment on one’s appearance or clothing, for example? This is frequently cited as something which is now considered “problematic” in a wide variety of circumstances.

And that depends entirely on what constitutes a compliment. I know you were talking about casual conversation starters like "you look nice" etc but hopefully you see my point, it's difficult to get into specifics because a lot of it is subjective.

I do see your point but I think they probably left it vague deliberately. I haven't read the study so feel free to correct me but if the aim is to gauge womens experiences of sexual harrasment etc then it's probably not great idea to define what does and doesn't count as sexual harrasment.

Mister Vain

Martina1991 wrote: »

I ask any man that read this post to ask themselves do they think it's fair that half of the population should have to change they way they dress.

No its not fair but it makes no difference what we think if the "Plain clothes police officers" have their way.

https://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-government-promises-immediate-steps-to-reassure-women-and-girls-in-wake-of-killing-12247200

Plain clothes police officers could patrol bars and nightclubs around the country as part of plans to protect women from "predatory" offenders.

Mister Vain

Mister Vain wrote: »

No its not fair but it makes no difference what we think if the "Plain clothes police officers" have their way.

https://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-government-promises-immediate-steps-to-reassure-women-and-girls-in-wake-of-killing-12247200

Don't worry.
They won't be in your local, unless you're in the UK

nolivesmatter

Martina1991 wrote: »

Statistics and semantics aside. This is reality for women. That we have to adapt our lives because "the biological makeup of men is never going to change", so we have to.

What's the solution though?

FunLover18

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely. And I never once considered that I was sexually harassing anyone in doing so.

The discourse around the term “sexual harassment” and what it constitutes has, however, become considerably more alarmingly broad in recent years, such that it now genuinely seems that this is considered wrongdoing by a very vocal swathe of commentators, and official documentation. That’s the problem I’m trying to point out.

Take the term “unwanted sexual advances” for instance, which is one of those used in formulating the 97% figure referenced in the OP. Now, if that were refined to “unwanted sexual advances which persist after an initial rebuff”, I would have no further quibble with it. But it isn’t. Ergo, the idea that giving it a go and being shot down still counts as harassment, even if you back off immediately, is the inevitable conclusion. It certainly seems to be what a lot of the opinion pieces on this issue are calling for. But it leaves society in a quandary because, as I’ve said, men are still expected to initiate every sexual interaction of this kind, and women (even those my own age, perhaps surprisingly) do not want to do this, but do want lads to do it.

All I’ve been trying to articulate here is that these two societal paradigms are currently crashing head first into eachother, and I’m curious as to what the solution could be.

I actually think you're making the parameters broader than they are. "Unwanted sexual advances" to me is an advance that is sexual either in nature eg physical contact or in content. You seem to be under the impression that asking a woman at bar if you can buy her a drink is a sexual advance but I honestly don't think that's what they're talking about.

Quantum Erasure

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re implying that based upon the results of the survey, you’re concluding that it’s women don’t know the difference between being chatted up, and sexual harassment. The “paradox” you claim exists, is nothing more than an invention of your own imagination to address an issue that doesn’t exist.

There were two recent surveys, the first , 86% (not 97%) of 18-24 year olds answered yes to at least one of the following

“Which, if any, of the following have you EVER personally experienced in a
public space?”

Being cat-called or wolf-whistled
Being stared at
Unwelcome touching, body rubbing, or groping
In-person comments or jokes
Unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favours
Being physically followed
Indecent exposure
Online comments or jokes
Sharing of suggestive or indecent content online or in-person
Being forced into participating in sexual behaviour
Had images taken and / or shared without your consent


And the second:

"...majorities across all countries [Britain Germany France Denmark Sweden] considered a man commenting on a woman’s attractiveness directly to her, a man winking at a woman and a man asking a woman out for a drink to not be forms of sexual harassment.

A man placing his hand on a woman’s lower back proved to be more contentious, with a majority of respondents in France (71%), Germany (54%), and Sweden (53%) considering this a form of sexual harassment. In Britain and Denmark the public were more split, with still 40% and 41% considering this sexual harassment respectively.

Britain was the only country in which a majority considered a man directing sexual jokes at a woman (69%) and a man looking at a woman’s breasts (53%) to be sexual harassment. Similarly, only the French were more likely to consider wolf whistling (52%) to constitute sexual harassment, than not."

hatrickpatrick

bubblypop wrote: »

Walking up to a total stranger and commenting on their appearance is just weird.

I take it you've never been to Coppers then? That's literally how I met my first girlfriend, and she was the one who approached me, not vice versa. She told me she thought I was hot (her words, not mine ) and sat down beside me.

If that is now considered weird, honestly, as a society we're f*cked. And that's exactly what I've been trying to get at with my posts.

Martina1991

nolivesmatter wrote: »

What's the solution though?

Acknowledge that this IS a problem that effects women far more than people think or realise.

Be more aware of your surroundings. Look out for women you see on their own whether it be walking, at a bus stop, on public transport etc. Are they being followed. Dont speed up to overtake them when walking. It may appear your trying to catch up to them.

Look out for friends and colleagues. Offer to walk them to their car. Text them to make sure they get home ok on a night out.

Young men AND women need to be educated about this.
We teach our daughters to not wear revealing clothing, dont get too drunk, dont walk anywhere on your own, stay in groups, tell a friend when you're going on a date and text when you get home.
Its engrained in us. Its what we've been told from a young age. We have been taught to fear.

We dont tell teenage lads to watch what they wear or where to go or what to do. They need to realise other lads can be a threat and to watch out for their female peers.

It's not enough for men to say, well I dont harass women, I'm not part of the problem .

nullzero

Martina1991 wrote: »

Dont speed up to overtake them when walking. It may appear your trying to catch up to them.

Ah jaysus. If I'm in a hurry to get somewhere I have to purposely hang back from any woman in my path? Surely that could also be seen as creepy?

nullzero

Danny Garcia wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what is the appropriate way, in people's opinion here, to approach someone you find attractive? Genuinely curious what people think.

These days?

Probably do it online, it's the only way you can be sure you won't cause offence.

I think online dating has probably made interactions between the genders in person more fraught as the risk involved isn't there in an online setting.

I'm glad I never had to meet someone online, just before my time really, but I can see how it becoming so normal probably makes men approaching women in person seem an awful lot more creepy today than in the past.

Martina1991

nullzero wrote: »

Ah jaysus. If I'm in a hurry to get somewhere I have to purposely hang back from any woman in my path? Surely that could also be seen as creepy?

Cross the road. Make your presence known by a cough or hello so they know you're trying to get by.

Looking over your shoulder to see a man quietly gaining pace behind you is intimidating.

nullzero

Martina1991 wrote: »

Cross the road. Make your presence known by a cough or hello so they know you're trying to get by.

Looking over your shoulder to see a man quietly gaining pace behind you is intimidating.

Saying hello to a woman you don't know could be seen as creepy.

Who said anything about slowly gaining pace?

Crossing the road may not be an option, a man could be putting himself in danger of being hit by a vehicle for the sake of not upsetting a woman walking in front of him.

Are we assuming that the woman walking and the man walking behind her are the only two people present on this imaginary stretch of road? Or are we talking about any setting regardless of how busy the area is?

I'm starting to think I should just stay home in case I offend a woman by virtue of being male.

jackboy

Martina1991 wrote: »

Cross the road. Make your presence known by a cough or hello so they know you're trying to get by.

Looking over your shoulder to see a man quietly gaining pace behind you is intimidating.

Surely saying hello to them would be creepy and cause more fear.

meeeeh

nullzero wrote: »

Ah jaysus. If I'm in a hurry to get somewhere I have to purposely hang back from any woman in my path? Surely that could also be seen as creepy?

I run so I often come behind people. I always cough or say hello when I'm about 10, 20 metres away. I'm a woman but I could still scare someone barging past without alerting them first. I consider it basic curtesy.