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

Eric Cartman

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

And then you get this kind of thing trending on Twitter, it's all over tiktok aswell I hear...

https://twitter.com/_tudulceninia/status/1372415400529387521



And people wonder why I try to get the facts

That one upgraded harassment to assault also.
Twitter problems are like asking someone afraid of spiders to size a spider , no matter what size the problem is, its always massive on twitter

quietsailor

biko wrote: »

This is not OK.
Based on a YouGov survey of more than 1,000 women - among women aged 18-24, 97% said they had been sexually harassed.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/10/almost-all-young-women-in-the-uk-have-been-sexually-harassed-survey-finds



Mod: There is an unhealthy number of posts popping up in this thread, either discounting the survey completely, or trying to renegotiate the definition of sexual harassment because it doesn't fit into your personal world view.

The thread is predicated on the survey mentioned in the OP (linked here if you would like to take a closer look). If your approach is to dismiss the survey rather than discuss, then you have nothing to add to the thread.

Where is the 97% figure coming from. After reading through the pdf I went and searched it for "97" and the figure isn't coming up. Even the Key Findings are saying "71% of women of all ages in the UK have experienced some form of sexual harassment, this rises to 86% among 18-24 year olds"

Stateofyou

quietsailor wrote: »

Where is the 97% figure coming from. After reading through the pdf I went and searched it for "97" and the figure isn't coming up. Even the Key Findings are saying "71% of women of all ages in the UK have experienced some form of sexual harassment, this rises to 86% among 18-24 year olds"

I believe it comes from the 3% that said they had experienced 'none of the above'

Invidious

Stateofyou wrote: »

I believe it comes from the 3% that said they had experienced 'none of the above'

The document clearly states that 20% of women surveyed by YouGov answered "none of the above."

The headline 97 percent figure, allegedly drawn from this report, doesn't feature anywhere in the document. One of the key findings is that "71% of women of all ages in the UK have experienced some form of sexual harassment in a public space – this number rises to 86% among 18-24-year-olds" (page 6).

The headline figure should be 71 percent, not 97 percent. But it's the Guardian reporting this, so go figure.

quietsailor

Invidious wrote: »

The document clearly states that 20% of women surveyed by YouGov answered "none of the above."

The headline 97 percent figure, allegedly drawn from this report, doesn't feature anywhere in the document. One of the key findings is that "71% of women of all ages in the UK have experienced some form of sexual harassment in a public space – this number rises to 86% among 18-24-year-olds" (page 6).

The headline figure should be 71 percent, not 97 percent. But it's the Guardian reporting this, so go figure.

FFS, this is doing more damage than good - anyone who wants to detract from the report just has to say "look, the 97% figure is a made up figure, the authors actually quoted a lower figure" and it makes the poster look like a liar and the the report like some make-uppy report. The actual figures 71%/86% are bad enough figures, why go making up numbers and making the case look bad

Stateofyou

Invidious wrote: »

The document clearly states that 20% of women surveyed by YouGov answered "none of the above."

The headline 97 percent figure, allegedly drawn from this report, doesn't feature anywhere in the document. One of the key findings is that "71% of women of all ages in the UK have experienced some form of sexual harassment in a public space – this number rises to 86% among 18-24-year-olds" (page 6).

The headline figure should be 71 percent, not 97 percent. But it's the Guardian reporting this, so go figure.

I don't disagree, but the point is that a majority of women experience some form of sexual harassment, which is terrible.

Invidious

Stateofyou wrote: »

I don't disagree, but the point is that a majority of women experience some form of sexual harassment, which is terrible.

Unfortunately, feminist advocacy has a long history of relying on shaky statistics, badly designed surveys, and crude statistical methods to bolster its claims. See the book Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers for numerous other examples.

In order to tackle any social issue, we need accurate reporting of reliable statistics, rather than scaremongering around made-up numbers. Unless researchers study a problem objectively, and journalists report on it honestly, we have no way to determine how serious the problem actually is, debate what should be done about it, or gauge whether the situation is getting better or worse. This holds true for issues ranging from sexual harassment to homelessness.

Unfortunately, advocacy organizations have a clear incentive to make social problems seem worse than they are, because exaggerating their extent creates greater fundraising potential. Journalists also have an incentive to report misleading headline figures if it means an article will get more attention, views, and comments. Clickbait attracts more eyeballs than professional journalism.

The "97 percent" figure reported here is nonsense. There is no source for it in the document upon which the story allegedly relies. And yet we now see 97% all over Twitter, on signs at protests ("We are the 97%") and so on — and many are so eager to believe it that they will never question where it came from.

biko

quietsailor wrote: »

Where is the 97% figure coming from. After reading through the pdf I went and searched it for "97" and the figure isn't coming up. Even the Key Findings are saying "71% of women of all ages in the UK have experienced some form of sexual harassment, this rises to 86% among 18-24 year olds"

Yes, I reflected on this myself also earlier.

biko wrote: »

The numbers in Guardian and the actual report (added in OP) differs. Guardian's numbers have added 10%.

Guardian
Among women aged 18-24, 97% said they had been sexually harassed, while 80% of women of all ages said they had experienced sexual harassment in public spaces.

The report
71% of women of all ages in the UK have experienced some form of sexual
harassment in a public space – this number rises to 86% among 18-24-year-olds.

Invidious

So the Guardian boosted the statistics in the report by a further 10% so it could run a clickbait headline.

Egregious.

nullzero

Invidious wrote: »

So the Guardian boosted the statistics in the report by a further 10% so it could run a clickbait headline.

Egregious.

This is the post fact world where fake news abounds.

nolivesmatter

Is 1000 respondents considered enough for a survey to extrapolate the results to a population the size of the UK? The have over 50 million people.

Stateofyou

Invidious wrote: »

Unfortunately, feminist advocacy has a long history of relying on shaky statistics, badly designed surveys, and crude statistical methods to bolster its claims. See the book Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers for numerous other examples.

In order to tackle any social issue, we need accurate reporting of reliable statistics, rather than scaremongering around made-up numbers. Unless researchers study a problem objectively, and journalists report on it honestly, we have no way to determine how serious the problem actually is, debate what should be done about it, or gauge whether the situation is getting better or worse. This holds true for issues ranging from sexual harassment to homelessness.

Unfortunately, advocacy organizations have a clear incentive to make social problems seem worse than they are, because exaggerating their extent creates greater fundraising potential. Journalists also have an incentive to report misleading headline figures if it means an article will get more attention, views, and comments. Clickbait attracts more eyeballs than professional journalism.

The "97 percent" figure reported here is nonsense. There is no source for it in the document upon which the story allegedly relies. And yet we now see 97% all over Twitter, on signs at protests ("We are the 97%") and so on — and many are so eager to believe it that they will never question where it came from.

I don't personally know any women who haven't been sexually harassed. Every single one of my close immediate family that are women has said this-we all had the conversation a couple years ago. The female friends I have I deliberately asked and they said yes. All the women in my workplace training regarding dignity in the workplace said they had been sexually harassed, and since the metoo movement felt things had improved in that regard.

They can't all be wrong.

biko

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Is 1000 respondents considered enough for a survey to extrapolate the results to a population the size of the UK? The have over 50 million people.

Yougov is considered a respectable research and data analytics firm and I'm sure their methods are above reproach.

tayto lover

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Is 1000 respondents considered enough for a survey to extrapolate the results to a population the size of the UK? The have over 50 million people.

Seems far too small of a sample size.

cee_jay

tayto lover wrote: »

Seems far too small of a sample size.

Statistics disagrees with you.
For a population of 67 million, a sample size of 1000 (approx) would give a 95% confidence level, with 3% margin of error.

Invidious

Stateofyou wrote: »

I don't personally know any women who haven't been sexually harassed.

Under the methodology used by the survey, I would assume that a very high proportion of women do indeed qualify as victims of sexual harassment.

We are not allowed, in this thread, to question the survey definitions used. That said, the Guardian's headline figure of 97% is still not supported by that survey — the actual figures are some ten percentage points lower than the reported figures.

Invidious

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Is 1000 respondents considered enough for a survey to extrapolate the results to a population the size of the UK? The have over 50 million people.

The UK population is about 68 million AFAIK.

It should be noted that the reported prevalence of sexual harassment varies greatly by age and also by geography, with rates ranging from 50% in Northern Ireland to 80% in the East of England.

The fact that half of women in Northern Ireland have never been sexually harassed in their lifetimes is a far cry from the "almost all women" claims — and yet these aspects of the report are ignored as they don't generate clickbait headlines.

99nsr125

Stateofyou wrote: »

I don't personally know any women who haven't been sexually harassed. Every single one of my close immediate family that are women has said this-we all had the conversation a couple years ago. The female friends I have I deliberately asked and they said yes. All the women in my workplace training regarding dignity in the workplace said they had been sexually harassed, and since the metoo movement felt things had improved in that regard.

They can't all be wrong.

Do you know any man who hasn't been harrassed by a woman

newmember2

Stateofyou wrote: »

I don't disagree, but the point is that a majority of women experience some form of sexual harassment, which is terrible.

Indeed it is terrible until you look at what they define as sexual harassment.

biko

newmember? wrote: »

Indeed it is terrible until you look at what they define as sexual harassment.

It seems they didn't let the women themselves define sexual harassment, instead they asked if the women ever had one of these things happen to her.
I'd say it's fairly straightforward practice.

“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

Pussyhands

As a man I'm really getting sick of the treatment and judgement men are facing.

Marcus Rashford put up a twitter post about Everard saying men must protect women. Why am I, as a man, getting blamed for something another man does? On one hand, women are like "we don't need men for anything, we are independent and can take care of ourselves!" and then on the other it's "men, please protect us?"

And just to put things into perspective, there were two people charged in relation to Everard, one of them was a woman!!

But on the topic of the thread, it's really annoying to see stats like the title. One womans sexual assault is another womans flirting. I can just imagine it now, an ugly man is chatting to a woman and just touches her on the shoulder or something and they claim it's sexual assault. Whereas an attractive man does it and she loves it.

I'm an unattractive man and I've technically been sexually assaulted too, so I'd love to see stats from men too. I've had my arse pinched multiple times, people trying to undo my shirt and people come up behind me feeling me up.

Evil people exist, they will always exist whether that's down to mental health problems or poor upbringing. I am in no way responsible for an evil mans actions.

Why aren't women held to account more? How many times do you hear when a woman is raped that she got detached from her female friends? It happens, where were the friends??

And finally, really sick of the narrative that women fear for their safety at night. Men don't fear for their safety? When I'm walking around Dublin at night alone, I have my key in my fist in my pocket just in case. I constantly look around to see if anyone is behind me. I **** myself when alone on the luas red line. I'd never use the red line at night! But because I'm a man, it's assumed I don't fear for my safety? Most of the people randomly attacked are men!

anewme

biko wrote: »

It seems they didn't let the women themselves define sexual harassment, instead they asked if the women ever had one of these things happen to her.
I'd say it's fairly straightforward practice.

“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

Nit sure what your point is, are you saying all of the above are not sexual harassment?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

biko wrote: »

It seems they didn't let the women themselves define sexual harassment, instead they asked if the women ever had one of these things happen to her.
I'd say it's fairly straightforward practice.

“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

There is also the option for "none of these" if it was something else.

But what one woman is going to see as harrassment is going to see as banter or even flirting. It might even depend on the mood - being catcalled can be ok once in a while, but twenty times an hour every hour when you're already in a bad mood for something else is going to piss ANYONE off.

Pussyhands wrote: »

As a man I'm really getting sick of the treatment and judgement men are facing.

Marcus Rashford put up a twitter post about Everard saying men must protect women. Why am I, as a man, getting blamed for something another man does? On one hand, women are like "we don't need men for anything, we are independent and can take care of ourselves!" and then on the other it's "men, please protect us?"

I think the theory here is: men will listen to other men. And if a guy sees abuse he should be calling it out there and then. Especially if he knows the guy in question. (As should other women, of course; but if a guy is going to harass a woman, he's not going to listen to criticism of one)

Theory though - not fact - obviously open to debate.

And just to put things into perspective, there were two people charged in relation to Everard, one of them was a woman!!

But on the topic of the thread, it's really annoying to see stats like the title. One womans sexual assault is another womans flirting. I can just imagine it now, an ugly man is chatting to a woman and just touches her on the shoulder or something and they claim it's sexual assault. Whereas an attractive man does it and she loves it.

That's a bit of a myth. Attractive men who harass women cease to be attractive very quickly.

I'm an unattractive man and I've technically been sexually assaulted too, so I'd love to see stats from men too. I've had my arse pinched multiple times, people trying to undo my shirt and people come up behind me feeling me up.

Evil people exist, they will always exist whether that's down to mental health problems or poor upbringing. I am in no way responsible for an evil mans actions.

Why aren't women held to account more? How many times do you hear when a woman is raped that she got detached from her female friends? It happens, where were the friends??

You've never been raped, I take it?

hatrickpatrick

anewme wrote: »

Nit sure what your point is, are you saying all of the above are not sexual harassment?

Specifically:

biko wrote: »

• Being stared at
• In-person comments or jokes
• Unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favours
• Online comments or jokes

These are not sexual harassment, these are the natural consequence of living in a sexually non-repressed society in which people don't feel the need to pretend to be asexual in the vast majority of public interactions.

If someone wants to live in a world in which sexual attraction is not acknowledged, that person should join a monastery or convent. The rest of us don't want to live in a world in which people who find us attractive feel that they cannot voice or display this with a view to seeing whether we feel the same way. Tinder, Bumble etc are depressing as f*ck substitutes for in-person flirting and hooking up, and the majority of men and women (certainly those in my own age group) don't want to live in a world in which hitting on somebody in person becomes a taboo like it was before the 1990s. F*ck that.

So no, nobody is suggesting that all of the items on that list don't qualify as sexual harassment - indeed, I'd go much further and state that at least two of them count as sexual assault and should earn people lengthy mandatory prison sentences. But sexual comments or looks? That's how people determine whether other people are sexually interested in them. And restricting people from sharing that for the sake of a minority of prudish introverts whose skins are simply too thin for 21st century living is absolutely moronic.

By the way, note that I don't include catcalling on that list. Being heckled in that manner in a public space is a pain in the hole regardless of whether or not it's sexual in nature and I have no problem at all with that being condemned (hell, when scrotes shout "What the f*ck are youuuuuuuuuu lookin' ah?" in Dublin city centre it's annoying as hell, I imagine doubly so if someone is shouting sexual sh!te) but the items I've specified on the list above are essentially an introverts charter for forcing extroverts to self-censor and pretend to be asexual. I cannot imagine a more depressing world to live in - hell, one of the main reasons quarantine has me going stir-crazy is having to resort to dating apps instead of meeting people on dancefloors like I always did before.

No study or campaign is going to convince me (or the millions of men and women around the world who are sex-positive and prefer in-person flirting to digital) that making a sexual remark or pass at someone in the hopes that they might reciprocate is "wrong". That's bullsh!t. It's even more bullsh!t when it's applied universally without any regard for context - for example, unwanted advances or remarks counting as "harassment" on a dancefloor or in a mosh pit? So no one can walk over to me and say "Hey, I think you're hot, come and kiss me?" I wouldn't have met my first girlfriend if she hadn't been allowed to do this (I had absolutely no confidence myself at that age and no ability to pick up on subtle cues, her being this forward was the only way I had the self-assuredness to go for it) and I suspect this applies to many, many young men and women in this and pretty much every other Western country.

Ultimately, sexually introverted people will feel uncomfortable in these scenarios and sexually extroverted people feel alive in these scenarios. Repressing the latter for the sake of the former is overkill of the highest order, and this, ultimately, is why so, so many people hear the word "sexual harassment" and roll their eyes. There has been too much of a push to equate sexual harassment with "openly displaying the fact that you're a sexual person and sometimes you meet someone you'd like to shift".

Until that changes, this subject and any study which attempts to make statistical statements on it will be controversial and ignored by a huge swathe of men and women who do not agree with the prudish interpretation of what counts as an acceptable way to hit on somebody.

Pussyhands

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

There is also the option for "none of these" if it was something else.

But what one woman is going to see as harrassment is going to see as banter or even flirting. It might even depend on the mood - being catcalled can be ok once in a while, but twenty times an hour every hour when you're already in a bad mood for something else is going to piss ANYONE off.




I think the theory here is: men will listen to other men. And if a guy sees abuse he should be calling it out there and then. Especially if he knows the guy in question. (As should other women, of course; but if a guy is going to harass a woman, he's not going to listen to criticism of one)

Theory though - not fact - obviously open to debate.


That's a bit of a myth. Attractive men who harass women cease to be attractive very quickly.



You've never been raped, I take it?

Have I ever been raped? I don't see myself as raped, but technically I think I was. My first time ever having sex, went to this girls house. She on top. She goes to put it in without a condom, I say I need to wear a condom. She says she's allergic to condoms and puts it in without my consent.

I take responsibility for continuing, but technically "no means no".

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pussyhands wrote: »

Have I ever been raped? I don't see myself as raped, but technically I think I was. My first time ever having sex, went to this girls house. She on top. She goes to put it in without a condom, I say I need to wear a condom. She says she's allergic to condoms and puts it in without my consent.

I take responsibility for continuing, but technically "no means no".

Strawman - I didn't ask you if you knew what rape was or wasn't.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No study or campaign is going to convince me (or the millions of men and women around the world who are sex-positive and prefer in-person flirting to digital) that making a sexual remark or pass at someone in the hopes that they might reciprocate is "wrong". That's bullsh!t. It's even more bullsh!t when it's applied universally without any regard for context - for example, unwanted advances or remarks counting as "harassment" on a dancefloor or in a mosh pit? So no one can walk over to me and say "Hey, I think you're hot, come and kiss me?" I wouldn't have met my first girlfriend if she hadn't been allowed to do this (I had absolutely no confidence myself at that age and no ability to pick up on subtle cues, her being this forward was the only way I had the self-assuredness to go for it) and I suspect this applies to many, many young men and women in this and pretty much every other Western country.

What’s bullshìt is that you’re not considering context yourself, likely because of your own self-interest and this “sex positive” nonsense. I know what it is, it’s still nonsense. What’s being suggested isn’t what you’re suggesting. It’s as though you can’t differentiate between welcome advances, and unwelcome advances. What’s positive about imposing yourself upon people exactly? It’s acting entirely in your own interests. It’s that sort of reasoning people who persist in suggesting that the person doesn’t know what they’re missing out on uses because in their world they don’t see why there could possibly be anything wrong with their behaviour or their attitude towards others.

It’s no wonder the figures being suggested are as high as they are when there are an absolute minority of people who share your “sex positive” nonsense ideas without any regard for people who don’t, people who you dismiss as prudes because they don’t welcome unwelcome advances. Even your own example isn’t making your point because you were approached, as opposed to you doing the approaching, you didn’t see it as sexual harassment, so you’re expecting that just because you didn’t see it as harassment other people shouldn’t see unwelcome advances as harassment either.

Nobody is saying anyone is allowed or isn’t allowed do anything, they’re calling it what it is, because they can at least differentiate for themselves the difference between welcome advances (which wasn’t the question being asked), and unwelcome advances (which was the question being asked). It sounds like you’re going to do what you want anyway, and anyone who doesn’t reciprocate and doesn’t welcome your advances is a prude. By that standard you’ll always be in the right, whereas civilised society which teaches consideration for other people puts your “sex positive” nonsense squarely in a minority, contrary to your attempts to suggest that it’s a common behaviour or attitude among young men and women in this country or any other country for that matter.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s as though you can’t differentiate between welcome advances, and unwelcome advances.

How can anyone differentiate this before they've tried?

What’s positive about imposing yourself upon people exactly? It’s acting entirely in your own interests. It’s that sort of reasoning people who persist in suggesting that the person doesn’t know what they’re missing out on uses because in their world they don’t see why there could possibly be anything wrong with their behaviour or their attitude towards others.

Since when is hitting on somebody "imposing" on someone? I have very very specifically stated that if someone gets in any way rejected, they should back off immediately. I'd actually argue that my views on that are more extreme than most peoples', to be honest.

It’s no wonder the figures being suggested are as high as they are when there are an absolute minority of people who share your “sex positive” nonsense ideas without any regard for people who don’t, people who you dismiss as prudes because they don’t welcome unwelcome advances. Even your own example isn’t making your point because you were approached, as opposed to you doing the approaching, you didn’t see it as sexual harassment, so you’re expecting that just because you didn’t see it as harassment other people shouldn’t see unwelcome advances as harassment either.

I'm expecting that in a world in which people find eachother attractive and sometimes hook up, someone has to make the first move. And doing so shouldn't be regarded as harassment in any context unless someone is then rejected and refuses to f*ck off. If that happens, by all means, socially crucify that scumbag. You won't get any argument from me there.

Nobody is saying anyone is allowed or isn’t allowed do anything, they’re calling it what it is, because they can at least differentiate for themselves the difference between welcome advances (which wasn’t the question being asked), and unwelcome advances (which was the question being asked).

See above. How is anyone supposed to know whether an advance is welcome or not before they've actually spoken to the person in question?

It sounds like you’re going to do what you want anyway, and anyone who doesn’t reciprocate and doesn’t welcome your advances is a prude.

Holy f*ck this is so, so, so far from what I've said and is an extremely messed up twisting of my words. Everyone, everywhere, has the right to reject anyone who sexually approaches them, for any reason, without being labelled anything. I have never suggested otherwise and nor would I. How are you getting that from what I've said? I'm saying that someone is a prude if they think literally approaching someone without knowing in advance whether it's welcome or not is sexual harassment. That would essentially rule out ever meeting someone at a concert or in a nightclub, ever.

By that standard you’ll always be in the right, whereas civilised society which teaches consideration for other people puts your “sex positive” nonsense squarely in a minority, contrary to your attempts to suggest that it’s a common behaviour or attitude among young men and women in this country or any other country for that matter.

Hypothetically speaking, you're in Coppers, you see someone you fancy queuing for the bar. How do you discern in advance whether he or she will find your advance welcome or unwelcome before you go over and say hello?

If going over and saying hello with the intention of hitting on someone is what you're suggesting is a minority behaviour, you have absolutely no idea how young people live and how house parties and nightclubs work. For both genders. Most people I know who are in long term relationships met under these exact circumstances. As I've mentioned, that is literally how I met my first girlfriend who is now a lifelong friend.

All I'm objecting to is the suggestion that we use the term "unwanted advances" without the word "repeated" or "persistent". That's all.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How can anyone differentiate this before they've tried?

You’re making it sound like a monumental imposition to be expected to consider whether your advances would be welcome or not. Allowances are made for people who are cognitively impaired in some way, but apart from that anyone is able to tell when their advances may be welcomed or unwelcome. People don’t generally need to be told explicitly to fcuk off, they can tell beforehand.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Hypothetically speaking, you're in Coppers, you see someone you fancy queuing for the bar. How do you discern in advance whether he or she will find your advance welcome or unwelcome before you go over and say hello?

If going over and saying hello with the intention of hitting on someone is what you're suggesting is a minority behaviour, you have absolutely no idea how young people live and how house parties and nightclubs work. For both genders. Most people I know who are in long term relationships met under these exact circumstances. As I've mentioned, that is literally how I met my first girlfriend who is now a lifelong friend.

Again you’re making out that it’s an impossible imposition to expect people are capable of reading the fecking room! :pac: You’re hardly suggesting that your one anecdotal experience which you constantly rely on to make your point should be regarded as evidence in the face of statistics which surveyed the opinions of a sample size of over a thousand women? God knows I’m no specimen of his greatest work, but even I have never had any difficulty in being able to tell when someone was interested, and knowing when they weren’t. By that same token I’ve often wondered were people who I was approached by that desperate, or did they just think that because of my unfortunate features I would be easy and grateful for the experience, as they were quite surprised when I wasn’t interested in their advances. I don’t think I give off the impression that I’d get up on anything, I do actually have standards! :pac: You get the idea, I’m not an introvert as you suggested, and it shouldn’t be difficult for anyone to discern whether or not I’m open to being approached, providing they aren’t cognitively impaired in some way, or just completely clueless.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

All I'm objecting to is the suggestion that we use the term "unwanted advances" without the word "repeated" or "persistent". That's all.

That’s how the term harassment is defined in Irish law already, as behaviour that is persistent, but this was a survey of women’s opinions and perspectives which are a better representation of women’s opinions than the opinion of your own and your first girlfriend. The fact that you suggest your opinions are shared by many, many young people certainly supports or lends credence to the survey results as opposed to contradicting them. There are many, many, many more young women who don’t feel the same way, and we know this because they were asked, and you don’t accept their opinions.

Tony EH

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Tinder, Bumble etc are depressing as f*ck substitutes for in-person flirting and hooking up, and the majority of men and women (certainly those in my own age group) don't want to live in a world in which hitting on somebody in person becomes a taboo like it was before the 1990s. F*ck that.

Well, I don't know if "hitting on somebody" was "taboo" before the 90's ...but, in relation to the Tinder hook up mentality of "modern dating", it strikes me that the more moves we make to reducing a sexual advance to a mere swipe of a phone, the worse we are going to be at making any advance on someone we find attractive in a real life situation.

It's a clumsy enough endeavour as it is and one that is subject to numerous social pitfalls. But practice and failure is how we learn. It's through our initial clumsiness that we learn to refine our "social skills" and become more sophisticated in our interactions.

99nsr125

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

There is also the option for "none of these" if it was something else.

But what one woman is going to see as harrassment is going to see as banter or even flirting. It might even depend on the mood - being catcalled can be ok once in a while, but twenty times an hour every hour when you're already in a bad mood for something else is going to piss ANYONE off.




I think the theory here is: men will listen to other men. And if a guy sees abuse he should be calling it out there and then. Especially if he knows the guy in question. (As should other women, of course; but if a guy is going to harass a woman, he's not going to listen to criticism of one)

Theory though - not fact - obviously open to debate.


That's a bit of a myth. Attractive men who harass women cease to be attractive very quickly.



You've never been raped, I take it?

Jesus, seriously this is your logjcal argument

Why don't we ask
Have you ?
What was it like ?
Did you go on top ?

The point was women caring about other women as balance to it being all mens faults.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re making it sound like a monumental imposition to be expected to consider whether your advances would be welcome or not. Allowances are made for people who are cognitively impaired in some way, but apart from that anyone is able to tell when their advances may be welcomed or unwelcome. People don’t generally need to be told explicitly to fcuk off, they can tell beforehand.

I will respond to the rest of your post, but before I do I just want to clarify: You are aware that people get rejected all the time, right? Have you ever been rejected? Have you ever been approached by someone you didn't fancy and had to reject them?

It happens literally all the time. Someone makes a move, the other person isn't interested and doesn't reciprocate, and the person who made the move gets shot down and rejected. I mean most people have been on the rejecting end of this numerous times in their lives as well as the being rejected end, because fundamentally everyone is attracted to different things and therefore a lot of the time, attraction is unfortunately a one-way street. It happens hundreds of times a night in the likes of Coppers or Diceys, for starters.

What you (and the definition of sexual harassment which doesn't clarify that a once-off sexual advance which is spurned doesn't count as harassment) are saying, unless you clarify further, is that any time someone makes a move and gets rejected, that person should have been able to tell whether or not that advance was welcome, and is guilty of sexual harassment because it wasn't.

That's literally the conclusion your post arrives at without explicitly saying it.

Let me ask you one other question: I don't know if you're from Dublin or if where you're from had an equivalent for "Wezz" when you were a teenager, but did anyone ever walk up to you at such an event and say "hey, will you shift my friend?" This is something I'd say every single teenager in Dublin experienced at some stage. That is an overt sexual advance by proxy (asking someone else to make one's sexual advance for them) and it's a direct sexual advance. Those exact words were so common in those events that it's a long standing meme.

Because that question is asked in the obvious context of the person asking not knowing in beforehand whether the person being asked is going to say yes, that question is asked with the 50/50 possibility of being an "unwanted sexual advance". If a girl came up to me when I was 15 and asked me that, and I'd said "no sorry I'm not interested", that would be me rejecting the advance. In that moment, I have declared that the advance is "unwanted" - I'm not interested, I didn't want her to approach me.

Is she, and by extension everyone who has ever asked that question, guilty of sexual harassment?

If not, then the phrase "unwanted sexual advances" is inaccurate and needs to be dropped from the definition of sexual harassment.

If yes, then in my opinion society is f*cked.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

99nsr125 wrote: »

Jesus, seriously this is your logjcal argument

Why don't we ask
Have you ?
What was it like ?
Did you go on top ?

The point was women caring about other women as balance to it being all mens faults.

Eh? Which argument? Are those actual questions? Have I what...? What was what like...?

I find the idea that women don't care about their female friends a bit devoid of logic, to be honest?

Pussyhands

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Strawman - I didn't ask you if you knew what rape was or wasn't.

You asked me if I was raped. I don't consider myself to be, but if I was asked "did someone ever have sex with you without your consent?" then yes, I was raped.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is she, and by extension everyone who has ever asked that question, guilty of sexual harassment?

If not, then the phrase "unwanted sexual advances" is inaccurate and needs to be dropped from the definition of sexual harassment.

If yes, then in my opinion society is f*cked.

Good grief, you’re really making this more difficult than it is in reality. As Tony said earlier, social interactions can be a clumsy endeavour and we make allowances for people such as children and adolescents who haven’t yet fully developed social skills, as practice and failure is how we learn. You’re quite aware of the difference between colloquial definitions of sexual harassment and legal definitions of sexual harassment, and I really don’t see any compelling argument for anyone to restrict themselves to a definition which you personally are comfortable with.

Have you considered that your opinion might just be out of date and that it’s not society is f*cked at all, but rather is beginning to recognise the extent to which women experience sexual harassment?

I disagree with yours and Tony’s ideas about online dating too btw, it’s really not reached the critical mass that it would ever threaten to overtake how people generally meet each other, or threaten hitting on someone, which absolutely was not taboo before the 90’s, isn’t taboo now, and won’t be taboo any time in the future.

All they were trying to do in the survey was highlight the levels of sexual harassment experienced by women, they weren’t demanding that anyone be arrested for being “sex positive” or anything else. You’re still missing the point that women can tell the difference for themselves and don’t need to be told what the difference is by “sex positive” types.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Good grief, you’re really making this more difficult than it is in reality. As Tony said earlier, social interactions can be a clumsy endeavour and we make allowances for people such as children and adolescents who haven’t yet fully developed social skills, as practice and failure is how we learn. You’re quite aware of the difference between colloquial definitions of sexual harassment and legal definitions of sexual harassment, and I really don’t see any compelling argument for anyone to restrict themselves to a definition which you personally are comfortable with.

Have you considered that your opinion might just be out of date and that it’s not society is f*cked at all, but rather is beginning to recognise the extent to which women experience sexual harassment?

I disagree with yours and Tony’s ideas about online dating too btw, it’s really not reached the critical mass that it would ever threaten to overtake how people generally meet each other, or threaten hitting on someone, which absolutely was not taboo before the 90’s, isn’t taboo now, and won’t be taboo any time in the future.

All they were trying to do in the survey was highlight the levels of sexual harassment experienced by women, they weren’t demanding that anyone be arrested for being “sex positive” or anything else. You’re still missing the point that women can tell the difference for themselves and don’t need to be told what the difference is by “sex positive” types.

So just to be clear, you're saying that unless someone is either a teenager or mentally challenged, they can't take a chance and see whether someone might like them or not if they don't think that person does already?

So two randomers can't meet in the queue for the bar in Coppers and one of them tries it on with the other?

I'm not trying to catch you out here, I'm trying to illustrate why the phrase "unwanted sexual advance" is such a ludicrous barometer for "harassment".

Are you honestly suggesting that an adult can't walk up to another adult in a nightclub and make a move without already knowing whether that person is interested? Because honestly, many of my friends who are now in long term relationships wouldn't have met their current partners if not for being able to give it a shot. In the late 2000s and early 2010s when these couples first met, it was totally normal for a stranger to come over and say "hi, you're cute" or whatever in a nightclub in Dublin City. You're honestly saying that this should qualify as harassment unless the person doing the approaching telepathically knows if the person they've caught the eye of is going to say "hey, you are too" and not "sorry, I'm not interested / I'm with someone / I'm just about to head home"?

I literally cannot imagine a more bleak way of living. But maybe that's just me.

EDIT: Also that's the problem, the survey didn't ask women whether they'd been sexually harassed. It asked whether they'd ever received, for example, and unwanted sexual advance - and counted that among the harassment statistics without reference to whether the woman in question regarded that as harassment or just an everyday part of going out on Saturday nights and trying to meet someone to hook up with. The fact that sometimes, you go for someone who doesn't happen to like you in return, and you move on.

anewme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Specifically:



These are not sexual harassment, these are the natural consequence of living in a sexually non-repressed society in which people don't feel the need to pretend to be asexual in the vast majority of public interactions.

If someone wants to live in a world in which sexual attraction is not acknowledged, that person should join a monastery or convent. The rest of us don't want to live in a world in which people who find us attractive feel that they cannot voice or display this with a view to seeing whether we feel the same way.


No study or campaign is going to convince me (or the millions of men and women around the world who are sex-positive and prefer in-person flirting to digital) that making a sexual remark or pass at someone in the hopes that they might reciprocate is "wrong". That's bullsh!t.

Ultimately, sexually introverted people will feel uncomfortable in these scenarios and sexually extroverted people feel alive in these scenarios. Repressing the latter for the sake of the former is overkill of the highest order, and this, ultimately, is why so, so many people hear the word "sexual harassment" and roll their eyes. There has been too much of a push to equate sexual harassment with "openly displaying the fact that you're a sexual person and sometimes you meet someone you'd like to shift".

Until that changes, this subject and any study which attempts to make statistical statements on it will be controversial and ignored by a huge swathe of men and women who do not agree with the prudish interpretation of what counts as an acceptable way to hit on somebody.

Being stared at
In-person comments or jokes
Unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favours
Online comments or jokes

To me, these are 100 percent harassment and depending on the situation, very serious. In work for example, any of the above could lead to someone being out of a job.

The focus of the thread is in respect of people walking out and about, be they in work, walking the dog, or in Tesco. Not there to listen to some randomers smut humour.

Theres nothing sexually alive about ogling people in Tesco, or commenting 'nice tits' or whatever. I'm sure the dirty ogler staring at people gets a kick out of it, but not the recipient.

Thsts crass and no one gives you the right to tell people to live in a monastery if they dont want this sh1t.

Calling it sex positive, is bizarre. As is calling a person a prude if they dont want to be ogled, or propositioned in public.

You keep talking about nightclub and coppers type scenarios, I took it to be more across the board and given the current focus on general and street harassment, I dont think this was a nightclub based survey.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I literally cannot imagine a more bleak way of living. But maybe that's just me.

EDIT: Also that's the problem, the survey didn't ask women whether they'd been sexually harassed. It asked whether they'd ever received, for example, and unwanted sexual advance - and counted that among the harassment statistics without reference to whether the woman in question regarded that as harassment or just an everyday part of going out on Saturday nights and trying to meet someone to hook up with. The fact that sometimes, you go for someone who doesn't happen to like you in return, and you move on.

Have you considered what it’s like to be on the receiving end of unwanted or unwelcome attention? That’s bleak. Being told you’re a prude if you’re not open to it, is bleak. Being told it’s to be expected as part of going out on Saturday night is bleak. Complaining about it and being told you’re part of the problem, is bleak.

Sure, you could look to nail it down to specifics and hypothetical scenarios which suit your purposes, ignoring those that don’t, ignoring context and all the rest of it and making out that anyone is expecting people to be telepathic that they have to be explicitly told to piss off, or you could acknowledge that in reality it’s pretty easy to tell, if you really want to, whether or not a person is interested without needing to be given explicit instruction as to what to do or what not to do in every single circumstance as an adult.

Leg End Reject

I'd love to know how those against a random approach in case it turns out to be unwanted meet anyone. Perhaps they can explain?

The vast majority of people who make an approach and discover the interest isn't reciprocated just politely walk away.

Should everyone now stop this traditional first move because of a few assholes who can't take no for an answer/read social cues/get nasty?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Specifically:

Unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favours


These are not sexual harassment, these are the natural consequence of living in a sexually non-repressed society in which people don't feel the need to pretend to be asexual in the vast majority of public interactions.

You seriously don't think this is harassment...? Or did you misread the word "unwelcome"?

If someone wants to live in a world in which sexual attraction is not acknowledged, that person should join a monastery or convent. The rest of us don't want to live in a world in which people who find us attractive feel that they cannot voice or display this with a view to seeing whether we feel the same way. Tinder, Bumble etc are depressing as f*ck substitutes for in-person flirting and hooking up, and the majority of men and women (certainly those in my own age group) don't want to live in a world in which hitting on somebody in person becomes a taboo like it was before the 1990s. F*ck that.

Are you trolling...? You feel you have the right to voice "sexual attraction and acknowlegment" regardless of how the other person feels...?

Or do you simply not know the difference between harassment and hitting on someone??

No study or campaign is going to convince me (or the millions of men and women around the world who are sex-positive and prefer in-person flirting to digital) that making a sexual remark or pass at someone in the hopes that they might reciprocate is "wrong".

YOu clearly don't know the meaning of sex positivity: it;s built on respect and consent. "Making requests for sexual favours" and ordering someone to kiss you on a dancefloor when you don't know them, most certainly isn't.

That's bullsh!t. It's even more bullsh!t when it's applied universally without any regard for context - for example, unwanted advances or remarks counting as "harassment" on a dancefloor or in a mosh pit? So no one can walk over to me and say "Hey, I think you're hot, come and kiss me?" I wouldn't have met my first girlfriend if she hadn't been allowed to do this (I had absolutely no confidence myself at that age and no ability to pick up on subtle cues, her being this forward was the only way I had the self-assuredness to go for it) and I suspect this applies to many, many young men and women in this and pretty much every other Western country.

And they say romance is dead

This answers my previous question about hitting/harassment. A lot of women don't want to kiss some random guy on a nightclub after three seconds of one-sided interaction. Surprised you don't know this.

Ultimately, sexually introverted people will feel uncomfortable in these scenarios and sexually extroverted people feel alive in these scenarios. Repressing the latter for the sake of the former is overkill of the highest order, and this, ultimately, is why so, so many people hear the word "sexual harassment" and roll their eyes. There has been too much of a push to equate sexual harassment with "openly displaying the fact that you're a sexual person and sometimes you meet someone you'd like to shift".

That one's easy: find it out about your target BEFORE you approach. If she is - and I know a lot of women that are - then go for it.

But if you can't be bothered and all you want is a **** and you don't give a **** about her, why is it her fault?

Until that changes, this subject and any study which attempts to make statistical statements on it will be controversial and ignored by a huge swathe of men and women who do not agree with the prudish interpretation of what counts as an acceptable way to hit on somebody.

Either you don't know what "prusidh" means or you simply use it to dismiss everyone who doesn't want to shag you on the first night.

TL-DR - if you don't know the woman you intend hitting on, or how she will react to your approach / request for sexual favours, find out first. (And for the love of God, don't ask "how?" - if you don't know how to do that....)

99nsr125

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You seriously don't think this is harassment...? Or did you misread the word "unwelcome"?



Are you trolling...? You feel you have the right to voice "sexual attraction and acknowlegment" regardless of how the other person feels...?

Or do you simply not know the difference between harassment and hitting on someone??



YOu clearly don't know the meaning of sex positivity: it;s built on respect and consent. "Making requests for sexual favours" and ordering someone to kiss you on a dancefloor when you don't know them, most certainly isn't.


And they say romance is dead

This answers my previous question about hitting/harassment. A lot of women don't want to kiss some random guy on a nightclub after three seconds of one-sided interaction. Surprised you don't know this.



That one's easy: find it out about your target BEFORE you approach. If she is - and I know a lot of women that are - then go for it.

But if you can't be bothered and all you want is a **** and you don't give a **** about her, why is it her fault?



Either you don't know what "prusidh" means or you simply use it to dismiss everyone who doesn't want to shag you on the first night.

TL-DR - if you don't know the woman you intend hitting on, or how she will react to your approach / request for sexual favours, find out first. (And for the love of God, don't ask "how?" - if you don't know how to do that....)

How exactly do you find out first unknown information where the variable is the person and never fixed.

You're citing a logical fallacy in your retort

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

99nsr125 wrote: »

How exactly do you find out first unknown information where the variable is the person and never fixed.

You're citing a logical fallacy in your retort

Again, it's more a case of not doing something. With the poster I was replying to, not wandering up to them and asking them to kiss you. And if people don't know the difference between that and politely chatting or making respectful eye-contact and smiling, then I'm not surprised people are confused as to what is and isn't harassment.

It's not exactly rocket-science.

Leg End Reject

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again, it's more a case of not doing something. With the poster I was replying to, not wandering up to them and asking them to kiss you. And if people don't know the difference between that and politely chatting or making respectful eye-contact and smiling, then I'm not surprised people are confused as to what is and isn't harassment.

It's not exactly rocket-science.

Ignore the "kiss me" request which is unlikely to work then I think we're saying the same thing.

Plenty of people meet by a cold approach as it's not always possible to make eye contact and smile. So, one person walks over to the other and strikes up a friendly conversation, or goes to order a drink when they see someone they like at the bar etc.

If you look around a bar or club (if they ever reopen again) you'll see that happen regularly, and some will kiss within minutes.

For the vast majority of people this isn't an issue, and it only becomes harassment if the one who approached won't get the hint and walk off when they're turned down.

Mister Vain

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Ignore the "kiss me" request which is unlikely to work then I think we're saying the same thing.

Plenty of people meet by a cold approach as it's not always possible to make eye contact and smile. So, one person walks over to the other and strikes up a friendly conversation, or goes to order a drink when they see someone they like at the bar etc.

If you look around a bar or club (if they ever reopen again) you'll see that happen regularly, and some will kiss within minutes.

For the vast majority of people this isn't an issue, and it only becomes harassment if the one who approached won't get the hint and walk off when they're turned down.

Exactly, especially when you're gee-eyed in a crowded night club. Some people here are describing the approach like its something out of a cheesy American rom-com. As hatrickpatrick said, plenty of people get rejected all the time. That's just the way it is.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Ignore the "kiss me" request which is unlikely to work then I think we're saying the same thing.

Plenty of people meet by a cold approach as it's not always possible to make eye contact and smile. So, one person walks over to the other and strikes up a friendly conversation, or goes to order a drink when they see someone they like at the bar etc.

If you look around a bar or club (if they ever reopen again) you'll see that happen regularly, and some will kiss within minutes.

For the vast majority of people this isn't an issue, and it only becomes harassment if the one who approached won't get the hint and walk off when they're turned down.

Not sure what you mean by "cold approach" but I wouldn't consider striking up a conversation as such.

My point is: blindly asking someone you don't know will be considered by some as harassment. You're asking them to do something for you without bothering to offer anything in return. And yes - as I've said before that - sometimes women are up for that. But some aren't.

If something you do directly to someone might be considered harassment - and you're aware of this and still do it -the question is: why do it?

Mister Vain wrote: »

Exactly, especially when you're gee-eyed in a crowded night club. Some people here are describing the approach like its something out of a cheesy American rom-com. As hatrickpatrick said, plenty of people get rejected all the time. That's just the way it is.

Being "gee-eyed" in a crwoded night club isn't exactly going to reduce the changes of it being interpreted as harassment...!

Rejection is nothing to do with it.

Gradius

There are genuinely unhinged people everywhere, and that creates a significant problem when something so airy-fairy is asked; what's the denominator, what's the standard?

There are people in this very conversation stating that basically everything and anything can be harassment.

Surely then, the entire premise is destroyed. So everything and anything can be deemed harassment, great.

It's not "information" unless it's informative. It's just...nothing.

One eyed Jack

Mister Vain wrote: »

Exactly, especially when you're gee-eyed in a crowded night club. Some people here are describing the approach like its something out of a cheesy American rom-com. As hatrickpatrick said, plenty of people get rejected all the time. That's just the way it is.

It’s not about the feelings of people who get rejected though, it’s about people having the right to be able to go about their lives without being harassed. Not just in a night club or a bar context, but in any context where someone is just going about their business.

Nobody is obligated to entertain anyone who is under the impression that their behaviour is just the natural consequence of living in a non-sexually repressed society and if people don’t like it they can go live in a monastery because they’re a prudish introvert who is too thin-skinned for 21st century living.

Are those people under no obligation to be aware of how their attention may be unwelcome? That it isn’t always positive in every situation? I know for example I don’t appreciate being hit on in work. Other people have different standards, and I’m aware that other people have different standards, but that shouldn’t mean that anyone who doesn’t want to, should be made to feel humiliated if they don’t wish to entertain that person.

It’s one of my biggest bug-bears with those types of people who think because they’re “open about being sexual”, that everyone else has to tolerate their shìt. There are people in positions of authority who have that sort of attitude towards their direct reports and don’t consider their behaviour sexual harassment. I’m not ragging on any one specific individual before anyone pips up that they would never do that. We all know it goes on.

We all know too the person or persons who, exactly like you said, approach people like they’re in a cheesy American rom-com and express their sexual interest to see if it’s reciprocated. If I’m just buying a coffee or whatever, I don’t want nor need someone coming over to me and telling me s/he finds me sexually attractive or whatever else and would I be open to the idea. I’m open to plenty of ideas in that moment, none of which involve the exchange ending positively for that person, whether I find them attractive or not. I just find their behaviour inappropriate, doesn’t matter what they look like. I know I’m not alone in that, and I know I’m not a prudish introvert who’s too thin-skinned for 21st century living. The thin-skinned person in that exchange is the person who takes it badly that the exchange did not go as it played out in their heads.

Nobody is arguing that anyone can’t do what they like, they’re going to anyway, but people will view the same exchange from their own perspective, which is not necessarily the same perspective as the person who doesn’t feel they did anything wrong or that their behaviour wasn’t harassment. That’s the perspective that was in question in the surveys (there were two it seems? Different countries and all that), not the perspective that is there to tell anyone they weren’t harassed or they shouldn’t feel that someone approaching them expressing sexual interest is harassment. People have figured that much out for themselves already which is why they stay quiet about it or tell themselves they’re being silly or they really are part of the problem or it’s their problem that they’re a prudish introvert who is too thin-skinned for 21st century living. It shouldn’t be those people who are questioning and doubting themselves, it should be the person who thinks their behaviour is appropriate should be questioning themselves, particularly if they’re constantly experiencing being rejected. Then it’s time to question whether it’s everyone else is the problem, or whether it’s something they need to look at about themselves.

Gradius

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not about the feelings of people who get rejected though, it’s about people having the right to be able to go about their lives without being harassed. Not just in a night club or a bar context, but in any context where someone is just going about their business.

Nobody is obligated to entertain anyone who is under the impression that their behaviour is just the natural consequence of living in a non-sexually repressed society and if people don’t like it they can go live in a monastery because they’re a prudish introvert who is too thin-skinned for 21st century living.

Are those people under no obligation to be aware of how their attention may be unwelcome? That it isn’t always positive in every situation? I know for example I don’t appreciate being hit on in work. Other people have different standards, and I’m aware that other people have different standards, but that shouldn’t mean that anyone who doesn’t want to, should be made to feel humiliated if they don’t wish to entertain that person.

It’s one of my biggest bug-bears with those types of people who think because they’re “open about being sexual”, that everyone else has to tolerate their shìt. There are people in positions of authority who have that sort of attitude towards their direct reports and don’t consider their behaviour sexual harassment. I’m not ragging on any one specific individual before anyone pips up that they would never do that. We all know it goes on.

We all know too the person or persons who, exactly like you said, approach people like they’re in a cheesy American rom-com and express their sexual interest to see if it’s reciprocated. If I’m just buying a coffee or whatever, I don’t want nor need someone coming over to me and telling me s/he finds me sexually attractive or whatever else and would I be open to the idea. I’m open to plenty of ideas in that moment, none of which involve the exchange ending positively for that person, whether I find them attractive or not. I just find their behaviour inappropriate, doesn’t matter what they look like. I know I’m not alone in that, and I know I’m not a prudish introvert who’s too thin-skinned for 21st century living. The thin-skinned person in that exchange is the person who takes it badly that the exchange did not go as it played out in their heads.

Nobody is arguing that anyone can’t do what they like, they’re going to anyway, but people will view the same exchange from their own perspective, which is not necessarily the same perspective as the person who doesn’t feel they did anything wrong or that their behaviour wasn’t harassment. That’s the perspective that was in question in the surveys (there were two it seems? Different countries and all that), not the perspective that is there to tell anyone they weren’t harassed or they shouldn’t feel that someone approaching them expressing sexual interest is harassment. People have figured that much out for themselves already which is why they stay quiet about it or tell themselves they’re being silly or they really are part of the problem or it’s their problem that they’re a prudish introvert who is too thin-skinned for 21st century living. It shouldn’t be those people who are questioning and doubting themselves, it should be the person who thinks their behaviour is appropriate should be questioning themselves, particularly if they’re constantly experiencing being rejected. Then it’s time to question whether it’s everyone else is the problem, or whether it’s something they need to look at about themselves.

That's all well and good, but doesn't it still boil down to the same thing; nobody knows how people are feeling at any given moment in time.

Beyond the obvious stuff like not hitting on people in work (won't stop some), how do cafes fit into any mould? Or parks? Or parties, or clubs, or anything else?

It's practically useless information.

"I could be feeling anything, practically anywhere, at any time, so be aware" = pointless.

When these surveys include hysterical questions like "how" one person looks at another person can be deemed harassment...you might as well have other bland, pointless surveys.

98% of all people have felt sick in the last year, when "sick" is inclusive of everything from death to banging your elbow. Shocking result!

There's no value in this stuff.

anewme

Theres too much focus here on in Clubs or bars.

The survey came out via the media as a result of people saying they cant walk up the road for example without someone hassling them.

The frankly bizarre statement that some people walk around almost in a permanent state of sexual arousal and with sexual tourettes, ie could proposition someone in the post office, or in the park, grabbing a coffee, in work, and that there must be something wrong with the person who finds this weird.

TanookiMario

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not about the feelings of people who get rejected though, it’s about people having the right to be able to go about their lives without being harassed. Not just in a night club or a bar context, but in any context where someone is just going about their business.

Nobody is obligated to entertain anyone who is under the impression that their behaviour is just the natural consequence of living in a non-sexually repressed society and if people don’t like it they can go live in a monastery because they’re a prudish introvert who is too thin-skinned for 21st century living.

Are those people under no obligation to be aware of how their attention may be unwelcome? That it isn’t always positive in every situation? I know for example I don’t appreciate being hit on in work. Other people have different standards, and I’m aware that other people have different standards, but that shouldn’t mean that anyone who doesn’t want to, should be made to feel humiliated if they don’t wish to entertain that person.

It’s one of my biggest bug-bears with those types of people who think because they’re “open about being sexual”, that everyone else has to tolerate their shìt. There are people in positions of authority who have that sort of attitude towards their direct reports and don’t consider their behaviour sexual harassment. I’m not ragging on any one specific individual before anyone pips up that they would never do that. We all know it goes on.

We all know too the person or persons who, exactly like you said, approach people like they’re in a cheesy American rom-com and express their sexual interest to see if it’s reciprocated. If I’m just buying a coffee or whatever, I don’t want nor need someone coming over to me and telling me s/he finds me sexually attractive or whatever else and would I be open to the idea. I’m open to plenty of ideas in that moment, none of which involve the exchange ending positively for that person, whether I find them attractive or not. I just find their behaviour inappropriate, doesn’t matter what they look like. I know I’m not alone in that, and I know I’m not a prudish introvert who’s too thin-skinned for 21st century living. The thin-skinned person in that exchange is the person who takes it badly that the exchange did not go as it played out in their heads.

Nobody is arguing that anyone can’t do what they like, they’re going to anyway, but people will view the same exchange from their own perspective, which is not necessarily the same perspective as the person who doesn’t feel they did anything wrong or that their behaviour wasn’t harassment. That’s the perspective that was in question in the surveys (there were two it seems? Different countries and all that), not the perspective that is there to tell anyone they weren’t harassed or they shouldn’t feel that someone approaching them expressing sexual interest is harassment. People have figured that much out for themselves already which is why they stay quiet about it or tell themselves they’re being silly or they really are part of the problem or it’s their problem that they’re a prudish introvert who is too thin-skinned for 21st century living. It shouldn’t be those people who are questioning and doubting themselves, it should be the person who thinks their behaviour is appropriate should be questioning themselves, particularly if they’re constantly experiencing being rejected. Then it’s time to question whether it’s everyone else is the problem, or whether it’s something they need to look at about themselves.

I agree but I wish this could be applied consistently to all aspects of our lives.

I am sick and tired of smelly gross wrecks coming up and asking me for change over and over and over again. Going on for years. Yet nobody really seems to mind at best and at worst I get called a bad person for moaning about it. What kind of message does this send?

Even more ingrained into our culture is advertising and marketing. I'm sick of eejits sticking menus and flyers and all sorts into my mailbox or just bombarding me with unsolicited attempts to sell crap to me. On TV, on the side of busses, over the phone, by email.

A massive problem we have is that people are indirectly shown that it's totally fine to push for what you want.

Hence, the reason why some of these gentlemen approaching the ladies feel almost shocked when told to f-off. It's like they've been shown that you need to be creative and persistent and you'll get there in the end when it's just not realistic.