sexual advances - the big question

curryeater

curryeater

Oh my days.

I give women as much consideration as I do any other human being. As I've said previously, eye contact, facial expression and also body language is usually enough to give me a sense of whether someone is receptive to conversation. If a woman looks at me and smiles (without any provocation by me) or gestures then it's usually fair to say that it's ok to strike up a conversation. If I don't 'feel' it then I don't do anything at all.

Often it is the woman that instigates and I am all to happy to reciprocate. In this instance I don't consider whether I may be imposing on her because she has opened up the interaction. Again, as I mentioned previously (as did Larry) women often speak to me when I am out with my kids.

I'm not trying to be overly casual about it but the women that instigate conversations with me clearly do not consider whether they may be making me feel uncomfortable or that they may be imposing on my time. I have no idea if these women are trying to hit on me or if they're just being sociable. I would think the latter. Of course I'm conscious of making women feel uncomfortable. Most decent men are - hence my saying that I gauge people before opening my mouth. But really, if women feel they can instigate a conversation with me then why should I curtail the behaviour/life experience that these women have helped to shape just because there are a few on here that object to it? Seriously?

I will stop gauging and talking to random women when random women stop striking up conversations with me. I think that seems fair. You may not like it and that's your perogative but for good/bad that's how I'm going to continue living my life.

PromQueenWithin

Anyone capable of following a thread of conversation should be able to pick up the flow of discussion without making unbelievably wide interpretations. Even now, TeiTetua has said: "I'm astonished that there are men trying to be taken seriously by feminists (can they actually want to be seen as feminists???) who are somehow defending this kind of behaviour". Unbelievable to say the least.

Then curryeater, "Is Dazzler a man or a woman btw?"

It really does defy all comprehension. Being a long time lurker I've seen this time and time again and am surprised I've been sucked into it.

JugglingFromHereToThere Thu 07-Mar-13 15:18:11

100% agreed.

Sexual advances should not be a part of life.

It can get a bit wearing when it happens too often and when the man is the boss etc it can put women in a difficult position which is why most work places ban it of course.

I think the current climate means men now realise women don't accept it and that's a good thing. The pressure must be kept up.

Of course Dazzler is a man. Look at this classic piece of mansplaining:

"Do you understand the concept of humans as sociable animals? I've spent parts of my life in various places in the world and people are very different depending on where you go. As what I would consider a 'rational' human being I tend to adapt my social level to my surroundings."

1. "do you understand the concept...?" typical patronising intro. AFAIK Dazzler knows nothing about me. I could be a professional anthropologist for all he knows.
2. "As sociable animals" - with a suitably crashing, immediate mistake. If you are talking about humans as animals, you mean they are social animals. If you are talking about human characteristics between particular individuals, some are more sociable than others. They are different words with different meanings.
3. This is important because, as social animals, we tend to live in groups; as sociable or unsociable people we tend to respond differently to different sorts of approaches. Clumsily mixing this up has rendered whatever Dazzler is trying to say functionally meaningless. However, bravely - or obliviously - he ploughs on:
4. "I've spent parts of my life in various places in the world and-" oooh you big-man-traveller you. How did you know that I have only been to the local shops? (clue: I haven't only been to the local shops.)
5. "people are very different wherever you go." So how does this fit in with social / sociable animals, then, as a blanket category?
6. "As what I would consider a "rational" human being" - glad you've got those caveats there, Dazzler. As what I consider to be a "teapot" (I can consider myself to be anything I like, as long as I put it in "inverted commas", like Miranda's mother), I think you are talking nonsense.
7. "I tend to adapt my social level to my surroundings." What, like you are doing here? (snort.)

It's all fascinating. I could go on like this for hours.

Juggling speaks sense

Larry, what have you to say?

Well, being attracted to people is part of life. Doing something about that attraction in terms of checking out whether it might be mutual seems reasonable

It depends on the way that's done doesn't it, whether it's acceptable, or even charming or welcomed ! That definitely includes taking no for an answer as well.

Dazzler159 Thu 07-Mar-13 14:56:28
Until someone actually re-reads what has been posted I'm not actually going to waste my time responding any more.
It really is patently obvious that some of you have some kind of selective reading filter that completely blanks out pertinent comments.
Either that or you're just taking the mick.

Dazzler, I have read back to see what you've posted.

Dazzler have you ever considered that you could've made any of the women that you've conversed with uncomfortable? Have you thought why they might have replied? Have you knowingly stopped a conversation when you realized that it was unwanted? If someone didn't want to talk to you did you feel annoyed?

Is Dazzler a man or a woman btw?

I'm astonished that there are men trying to be taken seriously by feminists (can they actually want to be seen as feminists???) who are somehow defending this kind of behaviour.

Quote: "How would relationships ever form without sexual advances? Do you want to limit relationships only to those mutually arranged through friends/family, where both parties know the other's intentions ahead of meeting one another? ...
Have you never heard of groups of both sexes going "out on the pull" of an evening? Or two work colleagues dating?"

Yes, it's certainly not a bad idea to find relationships through friends/family. But it's also all right to "go out on the pull" if it's clearly understood who's doing it and who wants to be left alone. Two work colleagues, more dubious but not necessarily wrong; there would presumably have been an introduction ahead of time, and they wouldn't start a relationship as strangers. There are all sorts of other ways that people can start as strangers and become acquaintances and then maybe more, and I imagine most of us have personal experience. For those willing to play those games, there are personal ads and computer matching, too. I can't object to it: my partner and I met that way.

What's all wrong is attempting to strike up an interest in a stranger. But most often, that's hardly the real intentionit's harassment, bullying, pure and simple. Or a half-hearted attempt at one that will more clearly show as the other when the (almost inevitable) rejection comes. What's important to these men isn't finding love and happiness in a cottage with roses by the door, but a man proving to himself that he can have an effect on a woman. Or even on a girlplenty of girls get hassled by boys their own age, and also by men decades older.

News flash. 16 year old girl on her way to school stabbed to death on a bus in Birmingham. A 22 year old man has been arrested. It's not clear what happened yet, but one wonders. Sometimes these things reach the ultimate level.

Dazzler: As per the program it was agreed that flirting and sexual advances were a part of life.

I love that observation! So it's all been decided on a discussion show hosted by Nicky Campbell that it's a part of life. Oh good - we all just have to put up unwanted advances then?

As it happens - that wasn't what I took away from the program at all. To me, the point was made over and over that this should not just be part of life, and that someone should sense when someone else is not comfortable with their advances- and back right off. I thought the women from the everyday sexism project, and the End Violence Against Women spoke very well - the latter touching on what was needed - for example, education of boys in school re. respecting girls' boundaries.

Actually the more I think about 'social interaction' the more annoyed I get - I can go out with my male friends drinking to a local bar and have a hassle free evening and yet I can't do the same with my female friends even though we are all married and obviously not on the pull. Does that imply that women as a group should not go out together if they don't want unwanted male attention?

dazzler you say: 'as per the program' - what are you talking about?

I think it is because you are insisting on bringing up scenarios we aren't arguing against Dazzler. We aren't the ones not understanding that reading body language and eye contact are important. We aren't the ones wanting to outlaw normal social interaction or people asking others for help. Yet you keep mentioning all these scenarios as if they are relevant? It is certainly confusing.

For example Dazzler has anyone male or female demand that you 'smile'?

Has anyone simply shouted at you 'nice cock'?

Has anyone sat next to you reading a newspaper/magazine with a picture of a nearly naked man and drawn your attention to it?

Has anyone intimidated you in a lift?

Has anyone interrupted you in the middle of a conversation to ask 'hello gentleman can I buy you a drink'?

Facepalm as much as you like, you havne't answered my question.

SirEdmundFrillary Thu 07-Mar-13 14:01:22

Should sexual advances be accepted as a part of life, was the question.

You say yes. I say no.

That's not what we are saying and have not been saying that at all.

As per the program it was agreed that flirting and sexual advances were a part of life. People give signs and act upon it. Sometimes we get it wrong and that's ok providing no means no and we accept rejection honourably.

It's the persistent ones, power trip ones, groping, manhandling etc. that is not appropriate and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone. No one is disputing that yet we keep going round in circles. I hear what you're all saying quite clearly and am not denying anyone's experiences. Why you should think otherwise is beyond me as it smacks of no one actually listening to us!