sexual advances - the big question

It seems very cruel to minimize and confuse a problem which is so annoying, and painful too. By "confuse" I mean mix up ordinary polite courtship with incidents which really are assault, thought they're seldom prosecuted as such. Touching someone shouldn't be objectionable, but it's never vitally necessary--so if there's any doubt, there's no need to take a risk. And likewise verbal suggestions. If you've got a relationship with someone, presumably you know how to communicate about sex. If that's not established, build the relationship and the opportunity should come.

Back in the olden tyme, maybe women and men didn't expect to be equal, but they did expect to see good manners. Or is that just a myth?

I don't know, curry. But I do wonder why a man would come onto a thread and say that the legal definition of sexual assault 'is not realistic'.

I wonder why any man would say that.

Larry, I still don't know what you want, or what you are arguing for, or what your position is, and your activity on here is offensive and inappropriate. You are spending a lot of time being contrarian about something which is, very painfully, at the heart of my experience, and countless others. On Saturday - only a few days ago - I was having a rare night out and it was over-shadowed by a man thinking it was amusing to grope me. I was upset by this and it has reinforced for me that the world is not for me; rather it is for men, and I am one of the playthings placed within it for them. It has made me angry, it has shaken my confidence, it has made me react differently to lots of other situations, especially at work. This is part of the fabric of my life and it is part of oppression. Do you think this is alright, or do you think this is something that should not happen? Because it is a part of normality, a normality which you seem to be defending. If this conversation is just a game to you, well it is not a game to me.

I think maybe Larry sees 'sexual advances' as being similar to 'romantic advances', for instance some nice chap chatting intently with a woman until he works up the courage to put his hand tentatively on her upper arm and look into her eyes.

Whereas for me the term sexual advances refers to men who grab or proposition you out of nowhere. Basically, Lord Rennard-type behaviour. It's not a term that resonates with the start of any of the sexual relationships I've been in.

Isn't it just running! And all that prison overcrowding problem! We feminist and those legal types are just not opening their eyes to reality.

Well, the reality here is that it's bloody freezing and I'm off to make myself something hot to eat. And I can do so! Because I'm a woman! I can cook! (My ! key is going to fall off in a minute if I continue ... )

LordCopper - yes bloody legalities of sexual assault - getting in the way of budding new relationships all the time!

Soon, the prisons will be full of poor menz who just tried to kiss a girl at the end of a date and were hauled off to jail! What are things coming to?

Larry does battle on, doesn't he, Doctrine?

This thread is moving so fast, I've probably missed bits of it - but the reference to Animal Farm - wtaf?

So, posters on this thread just want men to stop sexually harassing us in the workplace, in public etc. But really - once women are holding the whips, we'll be happily abusing our new found power to make unwanted advances on those poor menz, will we?

Do me a favour

Ah but women don't know what they want, do they, these feeble-minded frail delicate creatures whose brains would short-circuit if they even try to think? It takes a more forceful (male) personality to tell them what they want. And that legal definition of assault! How over the top! Really! You are consigning these shy women to a lifetime of, er, not being assaulted and therefore not ever getting into relationships with real men!

Larry, I've only ever seen two women on MN say SAHM are letting the side down, and I'm not sure they both identify as feminists. I've seen hundreds of posters saying nothing of the sort.

You may be thinking of some other feminists though.

If you're not comfortable asking "may I kiss you?" there's always the traditional "would you like to have dinner with me?" or the more modern "shall we go somewhere more private?"

But Larry knows - he knows - we're not talking about the beginnings of relationships here.

We're talking about men like Rennard, abusing their power over subordinates ar work and sexually harassing them. And men on public transport and on the street harassing women and taking advantage of the fact they may not have the confidence to shout fuck off at them.

They know their behaviour is unwanted but they still do it.

Larry - there are not only two choices here. It's not 'ask permission to make any sort of physical contact' or 'risk of sexual assault'.

Most relationships begin naturally through a mutual compatibility, and then move on in a quite natural way, with each taking verbal and non-verbal cues from the other.

When you met your wife did you ask permission? Did you think the only alternative to this was to risk sexually assaulting her?

I can't say I'm offended when people who couldn't be expected to know I'm not Mrs DH's Name (but I do have some fun with it on occasion) becuase I recognie that it is still the cultural norm for women to change their names.

I AM monstrously offended when people who know I use my own name insist on addressing things to me as Mrs DH Name, because they are foisting their own anti-feminist ideas on to me and ought to know better by now thinking that I am just wrong.

Re the kissing- I agree that asking or not asking, men should learn to take a hint. If in doubt, ask. Don't just assume that if you blunder on regardless, she'll change her mind.

Or if the man kisses the woman, then realising the advance was unwanted, apologised profusely and made note not to make that mistake again.

Not that unwanted sexual assault advances routinely end up in jail of course. More likely the woman would be told not to take it so seriously or learn to take a joke or she should be flattered or some other minimising excuse.

Larry, take it from me - if you try to kiss a woman in a bar, you will know whether she wants to or not way before you've committed sexual assault.

If she turns her face away, she's not interested. If you then back off, you have not committed any sort of assault. It's spectacularly simple.

Curry,

Nope, I am disputing the reality in UK law which, remember, is not statute law but case law.

So Larry, with your sarcastic "bonne chance", are you celebrating the gulf between legal and societal tolerances of sexual assault?

"Shall we do a poll, sampling frame "most women"? We'll ask them if they prefer:

a) a gentleman you aren't in a relationship with to ask "may I kiss you" and waiting for your response before doing so
b) a gentleman you aren't in a relationship with to misread signals and kiss you without permission"

I would actually really like to see that poll done.

"Well, that's really unfortunate for you - Larry - since that is a legal definition, taken from a uk.gov website. So whether it flies for you personally, or not, is not really relevant."

"We were chatting in a bar, officer, and he tried to kiss me. I pulled away and he immediately desisted and apologised. I'd like him arrested please and charged with sexual assault."

Bonne chance.