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

[solidgoldbrass]

inspired by a couple of other threads including the separatism one. Have you ever noticed that if a man you don't like or know or fancy is trying to persuade you to date him or spend time with him or even just talk to him, the only really effective way to make him fuck off is to tell him that you are another man's property. Just saying No, leave me alone, no thanks, actually I am having a conversation with my female friend and am not interested in talking to you, never seems to work until you throw in My Boyfriend or My Husband.

"I also do not buy the notion that such men are rapists."

Another woeful over-simplification of wht is being said.

We are discussing the notion that such behaviour is on a continuum. It's at the lower end of the scale, rape is on the higher end. It all comes from the same place - entitlement.

OK, so some men who persist in talking to you may be rapists but, some may be just cocky, arrogant gits who like to show off, but there are men who do not talk to women (can't relate to them verbally) who are also rapists.

The only logical thing to do is not to go near ANY man at all because anyone of them could be a rapist.

This is also why we (in the UK) do have a sickening trend among men in certain ethnic groups who target girls and young women who are from other ethic groups but who are also percieved be /are in more vunerable positions i.e. Care Homes or children of single mothers, for sexual exploitation/rape:

They are, generally, deemed as having no "legitamate" Male Protection and are therefore "easy" "up for grabs" "available".

I have grown up alongside such men. Their ideas, and actions are aborrant and are an extension of the premise of SolidGolds Op, namely: you (female) should be/are available to me (male) because you have no Male Protection.

But why do you think the cocky, arrogant gits only inflict themselves on women, Wamster?

Why don't they do this to other men?

So what if this behaviour is on a continuum, as long as that behaviour does not continue to the point of assault of any kind, it is not a problem.

Wamster, if a woman it is happening thinks it's a problem, then it's a problem.

Are your boundaries really so fucked, that you don't understand that?

What the hell are you teaching your children about respect for other people?

Seriously?

I'm really disturbed by your posts, you sound like you don't understand the basic principles of respectful human interactions.

No my boundaries are just about right, if a man verbally abuses me, assaults me in any way then the line has been crossed.
If he just wants to waffle on about crap and I don't wish to listen I make my excuses and leave. I've never come across a bloke who doesn't listen to this.

Maybe your boundaries are fucked because you are too nice or something?

HerBeX, I do understand the basic principles of respectful human interactions just that I don't assume 'rapist!"' when others do not.

But, wamster, those 'cocky arrogant twats' aren't harmless; they are providing cover for rapists.

As long as society classifies a man pushing a woman's boundaries as cocky/clumsy/careless/bumbling/whatever, it isn't seen for the potentially dangerous behaviour that it is. Non-rapist men will continue to provide cover for rapists because they will continue to insist that their behaviour is normal, harmless and can never lead to rape. But only non-rapist men know for sure that they are non-rapist men. Women don't know that, and can't know that.

Imagine if all non-rapist men who are also 'cocky arrogant twats' stopped acting like that, overnight, because they realise that their behaviour isn't just arrogant, but that they are mirroring the actions of a rapist. Suddenly those men who push women's boundaries become an easy-to-spot group.

Yes very good point VG.

Wamster do you understand that it's fine if your boundaries stop at verbal abuse, but for another woman whose boundaries stop at harassment (which is what we are discussing) then a normal man, should and would respect that?

It is not up to me to decide where someone else's boundaries lie, it is up to them and it is up to me as a normal socialised person, to respect their boundaries.

Which of course translates into all human relationships - some people are happy with a flirty, light hearted relationship with their colleagues of the opposite sex, others prefer a more serious professional relationship. We gauge what is acceptable to each other and act accordingly. What we don't do, is impose behaviours on them that we think is appropriate, we take our cues from them. All of us do this all the time in normal life and it basically works most of the time because we all have a vested interest in wanting it to.

It's funny isnt it SaF, it's exactly the same dynamics as in discussion about rape itself.

Rape apologists always want to suggest that there is something complex, complicated and fiendishly difficult about defining rape. Whereas people who don't want to defend rapists, don't find it difficult or complicated or ambiguous at all. They find consent quite an easy thing to define.

We're basically having the same discussion about women's boundaries in another context.

If it's annoying someone, it is a problem. (No, I do not mean that everything that annoys me shouldn't be allowed! I'm talking about deliberate actions directed towards someone else which have no practical purpose other than to be annoying. And double glazing salesmen.)

Why should someone have their evening out (or lunch break, or shopping trip, or sunbathing) spoiled by some stranger constantly badgering them? You assume it's a minor inconvenience but what if it's their first chance for a bit of "me time" in months, they were really looking forward to a bit of quiet from the demands of the family for a change or, the one several people mentioned early on, the chance to catch up with a friend or relative you haven't seen in years - and it's ruined by a persistent arse. They don't have all tonight and the rest of the week to do this, it's a rare treat, which possibly they've had to save up for, and now it's been taken away by a pushy git who thinks they exist for his personal entertainment. No-one's going to claim that's on a par with being violently assaulted because, well, obviously, it isn't. However just because it could be worse doesn't mean it's acceptable. There isn't a jury in the land who would let a burglar off on the grounds that he could have stolen much more if he'd robbed a bank instead. And there's no way I'm going to be grateful to an annoying dick because he refrained from attacking me. The refraining from attacking is surely the bare minimum we should expect. We can then build on that to include courtesy and consideration for others' feelings, or what kind of society would this be? Do you really push through life treading on people's toes because, well, you didn't poke them in the eye did you so what are they complaining about?

Re "pushy chatter-upper vs silent rapist", of course women can be attacked by someone who never said a word to her, just as she can be knifed by some random mad woman. These things do happen and will probably always happen, fortunately rarely. However they are not relevant to this thread. There are wars, famines and other hideous things going on round the world all the time and these are all far, far worse than a lot of things complained about on talk boards. But if the answer to everything was "worse things happen at sea", nothing would ever get debated and society would never improve. So I don't actually get your point about "but nobody got physically hurt". Injustice is being done, misery is being caused, fair game to debate and tackle say I.

Whoo, essay

My advice to some of you here is simply not to engage with men ever again. Every little piece of male behaviour could be construed as encouraging rape. Indeed, any bit of human behaviour could be interpreted as encouraging rape.

If I go to a wedding-a seemingly 'nice' thing according to society- and the father gives away the bride to the groom, I could interpret this as a sign that he is passing property onto the groom and that the groom is now free to do what he likes with that property.

I could go to a supermarket with a male friend, he may pay for the groceries as we are having a picnic or something. The cashier could say,' he bought the groceries. Obviously, a romantic tryst was on the cards'.

The bottom line is this: until a crime like rape has been committed it has not been committed. What you think may encourage it is one thing, but the police will look at a person as if they are nuts if that persons starts saying that a man who was chatting to them but did not threaten or assault them in any way should be arrested for it.

That is a profoundly silly post Wamster

Very well said Annie.

Wamster, why shouldn't we engage with men ever again? Why are you such a man-hater? They aren't all rapists and they aren't all pushy arrogant cocky bastards. Are we allowed to engage with the ones who aren't?

In addition, how do we not engage with the ones who are, when they are inflicting themselves on us in the circumstances we describe? That's after all what the discussion is about. The fact that in order to be permitted not to engage with them, we have to pretend that we aren't single. Which ought to be unnecessary.

And who has called for these men to be arrested?

We don't want them to be arrested, we want them to stop feeling entitled to harrass women and to stop doing so.

Btw I don't disagree with the arguments posed by HerBeX, VG and others above, I just happen to be arguing a different angle at the moment. There are several angles to it but not one, in my opinion, ends up logically justifying such behaviours.

HerBeX,

You should not engage with men again because although -Obviously in MY view- not all of them are rapists, in fact only a small percentage are, you seem to think that if a man chats to you persistently that there is a possibility that he is a rapist.

As for your assertion that if a man is not pushy or arrogant that he cannot possibly be a rapist, and seems ever so nice and non-pushy, that is so naive; do you not realise that superficial charm and niceness can sometimes be part of the rapist's armour?

I am trying to tell you that if you are going to be paranoid about that guy chatting you up being a rapist, you should be paranoid about ALL men because even the good ones can sometimes be bad and if you are going to live your life in this way, better not to go near ANY man.

Myself? I don't like to deem any man to be a rapist until he has actually done the evil act.

"you seem to think that if a man chats to you persistently that there is a possibility that he is a rapist."

Well there is a possibliity that any man is a rapist, or any man or woman is a murderer or whatever - but we can't stop having contact with everyone else in the world just because of possibilities.

"As for your assertion that if a man is not pushy or arrogant that he cannot possibly be a rapist"

Er, what assertion? Why are you making things up? I have never asserted that if a man isn't pushy or arrogant, he cannot be a rapist. Why do you feel the need to argue with me against arguments I haven't made?

"I am trying to tell you that if you are going to be paranoid about that guy chatting you up being a rapist, you should be paranoid about ALL men because even the good ones can sometimes be bad and if you are going to live your life in this way, better not to go near ANY man."

I don't spend my life being paranoid about guys chatting me up being rapists, but thank you for your concern. If a man persistently chats me up when I've made it crystal clear that I don't want him to, I feel irritated, not paranoid.

HTH.

So you feel irritated not paranoid if a man persistently chats you up? You don't think that he is going to attack you or anything.

So all the posts you make here are about you being irritated.