Some men really hate women being single don't they?

The thing is HerBeX is the only point I am trying to make is that cannot tell if someone is abusive just by seeing a snapshot of their behaviour in a social context.

That's really all I am saying.
Also, you mention straightforward people, in my view, straightforward people do not become rapists.

That should say isn't not is in the obv place

But on the whole Wamster, behaviour in one context is a clue to how someone might behave in another context.

Yes very plausible manipulative sociopaths exist and they are charming and presentable to everyone outside their families; but that doesn't negate the fact that for most straightforward people, how they behave in one context is indicative of how they behave in another.

Also, quite often with sociopaths and loons, if people actually observe their behaviour and don't do this shit of pretending that behaviour in one context is connected to behaviour in another, they do actually spot that there's something up with the charming psychopath. Generally the people who say that "there's no way you could have spotted that he would murder his wife/ his children/ the neighbours" are the ones who weren't paying close attention to his behaviour and have swallowed the myths about entitled behaviour being normal and natural and "so what?"

Wamster, I may suggest you go and read up on harrassment. Threats do not need to be made to warrant complaints if someone feels that their privacy and or safety is being infringed.

Us being out in public would be a poor response to that. We are NOT public property.

HerBeX, You basically implied that intelligent people thought that behaviour in one context would be an indicator as to how a person behaved in another context.

I countered this by saying that this was not necessarily true as some people (especially sociopaths) go out of their way to cultivate a reasonable public persona.

LRDTheFeministDragon, Well that is me and the law of this country put right, then, because we seem to believe that unless a person is threatened, or attacked in some way, there is no cause for complaint. Silly me and the law of the land. Aren't we idiots?

"But just because some others do not, I may write them off as socially inept and a pain in the arse, I don't however, think 'they must be a rapist' or, conversely, thata man who does not chat up a woman in this way and/or is superficially nice and charming, must be a good guy."

I actually don't know if anyone on this thread would disagree with that.

Once again you're setting up arguments no one has made, because you aren't really genuinely interested in the subject matter, are you. Which once again begs the question of why you are here talking endless crap.

But just because some others do not, I may write them off as socially inept and a pain in the arse, I don't however, think 'they must be a rapist' or, conversely, thata man who does not chat up a woman in this way and/or is superficially nice and charming, must be a good guy.

OK lets put it this way.

You're walking down the street and someone follows you, trying to talk to you. You tell them you're not interested, but they keep walking, keep following you. You try changing paths, but they keep following you. At which point do you start thinking "this person is a potential threat"?

And no, just because a man isn't persistent, arrogant, etc, doesn't mean I assume he's a good guy. Not sure that's the case with any woman on here. But nope, we're just the illogical feminists who lump everyone into "good guy" "bad guy" categories, based on whether they continue talking to us after we say no.

'LRDthefeministdragon, to be honest, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about now. I don't want to go into detail here, but I cannot possibly rape anybody as I am a female. Without getting all technical, I just cannot.'

• Hence me saying nobody thinks you're a rapist, yes? You keep insisting that this is all about us nasty feminists trying to paint all annoying social interaction as potential rape. We're not. You, for example, could not possibly rape. But you can be very annoying and socially inept. I simply asked if you get some kind of enjoyment out of that? If so, I can understand why you might wish to defend men who are annoying and socially inept, though I would still urge you to reconsider, not least because your logic suggests that a woman has no right to complain unless she's actually been physically attacked.

I think you do need to consider whether your slightly odd tendencies (sorry to be blunt, but it is odd to carry on a conversation by repeating the same thing over and over, despite being politely, then more firmly, told you are spoiling others' enjoyment and learning) are biasing you.

Women are more than just physical objects. Yes, it's terrible if a woman is attacked physically. But the idea that that is all that matters is, to be honest, disgusting. We're not property whose value goes down if we're harmed. It matters as well that we should be able to do ordinary, normal things like having a quiet chat in a pub. Invading someone's mental space with constant rejected advances is degrading.

I don't know which post of mine that is in response to Wamster and I don't know why you keep reiterating that public v private may look different to outsiders, I agree with that.

Whcih doesn't negate the fact that if a man persistently over-rides a woman's wishes when he first meets her in a coffee shop, train, pub, club or whatever, then he's probably a bad'un. Not necessarily an out and out rapist, but an abusive, entitled tosser. And women should be aware of that and not gloss over men's entitled behaviour and normalise it and pretend it doesn't mean anything about his attitudes. Decent normal men don't over-ride women's wishes. Which isn't the same as saying that someone who pretends to be a decent normal man, necessarily is one, that seems to be something you're a little hung up on.

Er, yes, they do, actually, HerBeX,; a lot of serial killers and rapists go out of their way to perfect a charming, reasonable public persona.

How many times have you heard neighbours saying about a serial killer: 'Oh but they seemed such a nice person?'

How a person behaves in public is not necessarily a guide to how they behave in private.

Got a fellow making advances on the train once when I was about 19 and very naive (I shouldn't have got into an unoccupied carriage after sunset for a start, and never have since). I explained that I was not interested so he said "What would you do if I started?" I considered this and suggested I could hit him with my umbrella. "What would that do?" he inquired. "Hopefully put you off,", I retorted. "Oh, so you really don't want it then". "No, I really don't."

At the next stop I said "Bye!" cheerfully, got out of the carriage, went down the train till I found somewhere fairly full and got in there, where I had a bit of a silent meltdown from sheer relief. Harmless and flattering, do you think? Well he did take no for an answer... eventually. I suppose it was my problem, assuming he would rape me, even though he did say that he might (unless anyone can put a positive spin on the words "what would you do if I started", without a ridiculous stretch of the imagination).

Depressing that over 30 years later it doesn't look as if much has changed. No doubt the answer is I should stop travelling on trains. In other words, as a woman, I shouldn't go anywhere unless I'm prepared to be accosted and threatened by strangers - or unless I can arrange a suitable male escort.

You know what we need on this thread? We need HerHissyness's perspective on living in a society where women are not allowed to go anywhere without male "protection". Oddly enough she didn't feel a great deal safer. But maybe she's just one of those people who is never satisfied, eh?

Wamster, do you not accept that for some women, a man persistently trying to chat them up, may feel threatening to them? And that they are the ones who get to decide whether they feel threatened, no-one else?

HerBeX, who said anything about dating? I thought this thread was about not dating guys who would not take no for answer?

Did wamster ever tell us the answer to that one question? Or are we all still being accused of being "delicate flowers" for not enjoying being harassed?

No, the way men and women behave socially in a non-sexual context, has no relationship whatsoever to how they then go on to behave in a sexual context.

None whatsoever.

As we all know, we compartmentalise all our emotions and feelings and behaviour.

Or so some people would like us to believe, but does anyone intelligent believe that anymore? That behaviour in one context, doesn't relate to behaviour in another?

LRDthefeministdragon, to be honest, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about now. I don't want to go into detail here, but I cannot possibly rape anybody as I am a female. Without getting all technical, I just cannot.

And, no, I do not enjoy being socially inept and others tell me that I am very polite and considerate to others.

All the incidences described above, are incidences of threatening behaviour and I've already said that this sort of behavior is unacceptable.

But SaF - "so what"?

After all he didn't rape you, so your feelings about it don't matter, doncha know.

Wamster one of the things which is really useful for women, is to try and spot "red flags" in a man they are thinking of dating.

A persistent refusal to notice, acknowledge or belittle your wishes, is a red flag.

It is bad advice to women, to advise them that if a man over-rides their wishes "so what". It is a big deal. It may not be in of itself a deciding factor aout whether to date the guy or not (although for me it would be), but if it is part of an undesirable pattern of behaviour, then it may be one of the factors.

I had something like that Thistle :( It's terrifying isn't it?