Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

sexual advances - the big question

457 replies

BramshawHill · 03/03/2013 10:47

BBC the big question is currently discussing whether sexual advances should be accepted as a part of life.

The first speaker has said it weakens men and women if women complain about it every time, and that it IS a part of life.

Anyone else watching? Thoughts?

First time posting, hello btw!

OP posts:
runningforthebusinheels · 12/03/2013 12:15

Grin 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?

UptoapointLordCopper · 12/03/2013 12:19

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. Grin

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 ... Grin)

MooncupGoddess · 12/03/2013 13:17

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.

curryeater · 12/03/2013 13:25

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.

runningforthebusinheels · 12/03/2013 14:15

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. Hmm

PromQueenWithin · 12/03/2013 14:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TeiTetua · 12/03/2013 14:26

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?

curryeater · 12/03/2013 14:26

Right, running. good question. Exactly.

If I am asked to do something that I think is trivial, but that matters to the other person, I will do it. I will address people as they like (not that this is trivial), I do not let dc take pork into muslim CM's home, I watch out for things that cost me little but matter a lot to others.

Why does this cost so much for Larry to do - so much that he can't bear to accept it and he has to argue at such length against it?

WHAT DOES HE STAND TO LOSE?

Bingo.

curryeater · 12/03/2013 14:27

It's not trivial. Not to me, not to Larry. I am arguing for my bodily autonomy and he is arguing for his male privilege to disregard it.

larrygrylls · 12/03/2013 14:57

Fwiw, this is the actual definition of sexual assault, as opposed to the simplified one.

Sexual assault

(1)A person

(A) commits an offence if? .
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B), .
(b)the touching is sexual, .
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and .
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. .

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the
circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

This is perfectly reasonable as (d) and (2) make it much subtler and take normal human interaction out of it. There is no mention of (d) in the earlier linked-to definition, which I do take issue with.

And, no, I have zero personally invested in this. What is this assumption that to have an opinion on any subject, you need a "personal investment" in it. I have an opinion about life in other solar systems and God. I don't think I have anything personally invested in those, either.

And I wouldn't keep coming back to it if I were not repeatedly asked by name to come back and give my opinion on something. (I can link to multiple posts upthread to make this point if it is in doubt)

What a great way to shut dialogue down, though, a little nudge nudge, wink wink, we know what you are really like...

curryeater · 12/03/2013 15:02

Well if you don't have any skin in the game Larry you are really fucking rude and insensitive because I fucking do, so just agree to be nice to humour me and stop quibbling about how you should be "allowed" to do what you want, or whatever the fuck you are quibbling about, because you won't come out and say it.

PromQueenWithin · 12/03/2013 15:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

runningforthebusinheels · 12/03/2013 16:02

This is perfectly reasonable as (d) and (2) make it much subtler and take normal human interaction out of it. There is no mention of (d) in the earlier linked-to definition, which I do take issue with.

Larry, it doesn't make it 'subtler' or a 'grey area'. A man is perfectly capable of being able to tell whether a person is consenting or not. The fact that they might use 'consent' as a way of wiggling out of something they have done, that they shouldn't have, is another matter altogether.

The situations that we are talking about here are men making unwanted advances towards women. There can be no mistaking whether it is consensual or not when a woman is frozen to the spot, rigid with fear and confusion, looking away, making excuses to get away from him, or any of the other ways women let men know they are not interested in them, without actually yelling fuck off.

Lord Rennard is not a stupid man, he couldn't have reasonably believed those women were consenting - any more than curry consented to the man groping her on Saturday night, or I consented to the old man that smacked me on the bum, when I was at my saturday job as an 18yr old.

People consenting to sexual activity make it obvious.

WhitegoldWielder · 12/03/2013 16:08

Presume you'd be ok with a much physically bigger and stronger man making a sexual advance towards you Larry? Presume you'll give the same advice to your sons about it being part of life when they also are subjected to the same interaction? Maybe when it's their male teacher, male university lecturer or male boss?

runningforthebusinheels · 12/03/2013 16:15

As far as I can tell, even Lord Rennard isn't going down the 'consent' route. He's going down the 'total denial' route.

Why several women would all come forward to lie about him like this, I don't know. Perhaps they just want to bring him down, out of spite. Bitches.

WhentheRed · 12/03/2013 16:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WhitegoldWielder · 12/03/2013 16:24

And actually Larry your posts illustrate beautifully male privilege and your callous game playing. Your world is very different to mine and you don't give a shit. Why should you?

runningforthebusinheels · 12/03/2013 16:28

That'll be it, WhentheRed. Or they're doing it for the publicity. Or money.

PromQueenWithin · 12/03/2013 16:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 12/03/2013 16:53

This is not trivial to me either. I have written on MN before about my sexual harassment in the workplace when I was younger, and I posted on the everyday sexual assaults thread.

Larry. Do you really think your posts on here are appropriate? Saying things like this:

We then get the "I believe you" and "I'm so sorry" from one internet stranger to another. I guess if it comforts it serves a purpose but it is not really the discussion intended by the OP.

...to a woman who has just written about a stranger groping her on Saturday night, and is clearly upset about it?

It's just so dismissive.

Larry - you may be discussing this from a purely theoretical perspective, but you should understand that people are discussing real experiences too. Experiences that remain upsetting to them. Have a little respect.

runningforthebusinheels · 12/03/2013 17:06

This is it - Larry's posts are a bit of armchair pontificating. A bit of theory, a discussion about something that hasn't affected him, and is unlikely to affect him in the future.

But he's quite happy to tell all us silly wimmin that we're being a bit silly and that we just have to put up with it. After all, his mum does. And how else would any normal relationships get off the ground? Do we want to go back to arranged marriages?? Shock

luvlyb · 14/03/2013 19:55

Hi dere

kim147 · 15/03/2013 18:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SolidGoldBrass · 15/03/2013 23:40

Kim: Yes, interesting. I rather expect that what made the difference was that the man's intention was to pay a compliment rather than to humiliate, insult or even angle for a shag, or at least that's how it came across to the OP and he didn't subsequently wop his dick out.

There's also a big difference between 'You are beautiful' and 'Oi, big tits! Get a load of those tits!'

BertieBotts · 15/03/2013 23:51

He wasn't expecting anything in return for his compliment.