Gosh. I turn my back for a few minutes, and all sorts of words are being put in my mouth!
Dreamy I've explained this to you already: it's not (obviously!) that the women getting their tits out are seeking to challenge a sexist social norm. No. But we should be sophisticated enough to analyse all the factors at play. Some posters were very quick to compare with men - refs to penises came about on PAGE ONE. Cue a discussion about whether breasts are inherently sexual. Cue my point that we shouldn't blindly swallow the "breasts are sexual" mantra, just because The Sun and its ilk fed us that for years.
So that's why I said we should challenge that social norm - because it's part of the argument, NOT because the women involved were mavericks pushing social change.
With me so far?
Then you say there's "no point" finding a quote of me denying it's harassment 
Hmmm. Could it actually because I haven't said that??!
Here, just to avoid confusion: It is sexual harassment.
But also: it's a drop in the ocean compared with the general backdrop of male to female sexual harassment. I know that is irrelevant to the actual individual men affected in this case, and I support theire right to be protected. But it's NOT irrelevant when you've got clowns on thus thread sadly shaking their heads and saying how this behaviour from women calls into question our fight against Weinstein and his type.
THAT and THAT ALONE was the point I'm making, and yet you've insisted on arguing me every step of the way with stupid semantic games. Why??