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.

What Empusa said.

Ha, oh dear.

Still, the majority of the public (I would put money on this) will not support someone's "right" to make another feel threatened/scared/upset.

I'm am certain that the general public would agree that anyone who thought it was ok to keep bothering someone after being told to stop was utterly in the wrong.

I don't think this is a viewpoint held only by feminists (even "drippy" feminists), I'd say it's a pretty mainstream view.

And saying, "well, it happens so it must be acceptable" is bizarre logic. By that logic, rape, murder and assault must be ok by the general public, just because some people do it.

Gosh. What a lot of deletions.

The "i" word is a very naughty word

ok, so if a group of people were in a bar, and over the other side of the room person A saw person B.

A has been wanting to talk to B for a while - they have a few business contacts, and A is hoping to do business with B, but they have never really met. A wanders over to B, introduces themselves, but B is having a fun time wtih friends, and doesn't want to talk business. A is persistent, but B quite clearly says 'no thanks, I don't want this conversation.'

It would be seen as very rude, and actually would probably prevent any chance of future business, if A continued to push the business talk.

In fact, it's almost definite that any business person would do no more than introduce themselves & say hi, at a push they might hand over a card.

So why is chatting up someone seen as being OK to persist so much?

Empusa You keep misinterpreting what I have (consistently) said here; i.e. the right for people never to feel threatened or abused.

Yes, I agree that nobody should feel threatened or abused, however, if the man means no harm and is only talking to the woman and the only emotion the woman feels is irritation, then, yes, I do not think that it is that big a deal.

I never felt threatened by the guy who persistently asked me on a date; I sensed (and my feelings turned out to be valid) that he meant me no harm.

I felt irritated for certain; but not threatened. If I had felt threatened I would have gone to police.

Actually, the opening post does not really say exactly how a woman feels in this situation; it is true that she may very well feel threatened, but it is also true to say that she may only feel irritated.

Just because a bloke continues to talk to a woman after she has told him she is not interested does not necessarily mean:
a, He wishes to threaten or harm her in any way
b, She feels threatened by him

A lot depends on context: a young lad could just be pushing his luck and showing off in front of his friends, the woman may sense this, e.g. 'go on let me buy you a drink'.
'No I don't want a drink'
'Oh go on let me buy you a drink'

Woman -feeling highly irritated but not threatened- 'Now go away'
Guy: 'Sure you don't want a drink'
Her: 'No thanks'
Guy goes away. Not as quickly as the woman may have wanted, but, in this situation, I would feel irritated but not threatened.

Now it could be argued that he is being persistent, true, but no real harm done, is there? Not in this situation.

My point is this: persistence does not automatically mean the guy means harm or that the woman feels threatened.
It depends on the people (like everything else).

"persistence does not automatically mean a man means harm"

No, but it does mean that he forfeits his right to be treated as if he poses no risk of harm.

Yes, I think I'd agree with that Thistledew.

Forfeits his right by society or the woman, or both? So, what should the woman do? Ring the police? The police should arrest a man because he is a persistent chatter-upper but not actually committed a crime such as threatening behaviour or assault?

Whether this is a man and a woman or simply two people is not necessarliy relevant... the point is that there is a point at which someone may legitimately be assessed as a threat and failure to bugger off when asked seems a reasonable point for someone to start making that assessment. Do you really think that anyone is suggesting that this is also the point at which the police is called? Come on...

By both Wamster. That is really the whole point of this thread.

Women should be entitled to react strongly to such behaviour, and to be backed up by those around her, whether they be club bouncers, train conductors, her friends or his friends.

She should not be told by her friends, his friends or society as a whole that it is only a minor irritant that she has to put up with.

Well, jennyvstheworld, if a person feels threatened by another human being they should call the police. Yes, they should because the police are supposed to deal with threatening behaviour.

The impression I am getting here is that woman do not like men hassling them; fair enough, so what to do about it, then? Well, the sensible solution seems to call those who are supposed to deal with this behaviour i.e. the police.

So, yes, I am suggesting that if a persistent male is being more than just a pain in the arse and the woman feels threatened, she should call the police and they can make a log of that call. They may think not to come around, but the woman has done all she can reasonably do to alert that she may be in danger. So what if the police laugh at her? Is being laughed at of more importance than being safe?

Men may or may not change their behaviour, but women can make a pain in the arse of themselves to the police so that their voices are heard.

I am sorry, but if women are not prepared to do this (I am making the assumption here that they can access and use a phone, I admit- if they can't then it is NOT an option for them and fair enough, they can't do it), then, yes, there is a part of me that thinks: 'you're moaning but not prepared to take action when you can

Hmmm. For me:

A lot depends on context: a young lad could just be pushing his luck and showing off in front of his friends, the woman may sense this, e.g. 'go on let me buy you a drink'.
'No I don't want a drink'
'Oh go on let me buy you a drink'

Woman -feeling highly irritated but not threatened- 'Now go away'
Guy: 'Sure you don't want a drink'
Her: 'No thanks'
Guy goes away.

= FINE, in my opinion.

This situation:

'go on let me buy you a drink'.
'No I don't want a drink'
'Oh go on let me buy you a drink'

Woman -feeling highly irritated but not threatened- 'Now go away'
Guy: 'Sure you don't want a drink'
Her: 'No thanks'
Conversation continues in the same vein for 15 mins, with him pressing a drink, and her saying no thanks. When she tries to edge away he edges with her. When she says no he ignores her. When she says she is going to go he says no no don't go just talk to me for a minute, don't be nasty. And so on and so on.

Fine? Not in my book.

Oh come off it, how are others supposed to know if a couple are appearing to be only talking whether to intervene or not?
In any case, if there is evidence of grabbing or shoving most people do intervene already. Men like to play the rescuer, I see it all the time.

What's with all the deletions?

Didn't you say earlier there was no cause for complaint, unless threats were made, or violence was used, Wamster?

And why should the onus be on the woman to call the police? Why can't men accept our answer first time round? The most I've had from a male friend (was an admirer at the time) was
"Can I buy you a drink?"
"I'm alright, but thank you for the offer."
"OK"

And he very politely left it at that. We became friends through chance a few weeks later. That was one of the first times he'd met me.

Why persist it any further? Maybe an "are you sure", I could understand, but if a woman says "no" more than once, accept that answer.

I don't know why men cannot accept your answer first time round- I think I know, but there is no point mentioning it- anyway, the thing to do- as they say in all self-help books- is not to expect others to change their behaviour but for a person to do all they reasonable can themselves to change things.

Do you seriously expect bouncers to intervene when a couple appear to be only talking, bouncers going around asking women, 'Is this guy bothering you?' all the time? I can only imagine how well that would go down.

It is not the club's job to decide if a guy is a persistent chatter-upper; they can only intervene when they observe the guy being aggressive/ violent.

But it's nice to see the notion of women being damsels-in-distress because some guy is talking to them (only) being put forward here. There is a word for that, isn't there? I think it is called paternalism.