sexual advances - the big question

[BramshawHill]

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!

"If you go out for a meal in a restaurant with a girlfriend or select a quiet table in a corner,"

What the fuck makes you think you know this, Larry? It isn't true, by the way.
Are you going to believe me or tell me you know better?

"I don't think there is anything entitled about initiating a conversation with someone reading a newspaper, though! "

OK, let me tell you, as a point of information, that it is usually annoying. You can believe me, or you can know better, it's up to you.

"I don't think there is anything entitled about initiating a conversation with someone reading a newspaper, though! "

Well, most entitled people don't see anything wrong with their behaviour.

I don't want to be a gatekeeper to sex. I just want to be treated like a human being. I don't think that's unreasonable.

The trouble is that some men see women as gatekeepers to sex first and human beings second.

Women tend to view men as human beings first.

Well, everyone is a 'gatekeeper' for their own sexuality in that everyone has the right to CHOOSE who they want to have any kind of sexual engagement with. As the blogs linked to above pointed out, now there are so many ways of reaching people who are actually looking for a relationship and/or some NSA sex, there is really no justification for pestering strangers in the street because you want sex or a date.

Larry, the key point that every man needs to remember when he approaches a woman he doesn't know is that, while his intentions may be harmless she doesn't know that. There is a TEN PERCENT CHANCE that he's a rapist after all. So unless it's in a very social situation (nightclub, bar, party) it's best to leave women alone unless there's been at least some eye contact and a smile.

Love how very mad this is getting.

All the women on the thread find it terribly simple, all the men tying themselves in knots trying to say why it's ok for men to approach women.

Gatekeepers, bars, restaurants, newspapers, women unable to give "I want you signals" any more justifications?

I think the problem is that men WANT to be able to approach women.

But we don't want them to.

So they shouldn't fucking do it.

And if someone says, "Well some women want to be approached"

see my point days ago ^^

THEY WILL LET YOU KNOW

I don't think they shoud. Why should they?

Also, I don't see men shouted at on the street or in the press for their appearance being wrong. Which is connected.

Larry, you said yourself that there are times when you don't want to be disturbed, like when you are doing a crossword. You say as long as the disturber is "polite and responsive to your signals," it's not a problem though. You seem to expect that all women will have the same attitude as you to interruptions.

As so many have said here, one of the problems is that men who approach women, hoping for their smile/attention/praise/phone number/sex/whatever are not polite and responsive when rebuffed. They are often insulting, hostile and threatening, regardless of whether they are ignored, politely told "no" or abruptly told to do one.

Unless you routinely get a nasty response to telling someone you would prefer to ponder on 7 across than talk to them, then perhaps you won't see why women, who DO routinely get this kind of response, have a different perspective.

Following on from SGB's post, this blog about SCHRÖDINGER?S RAPIST is very apt.

Or, as in Stick Em Up's case, she has declined the offer, but they have persisted in demanding her attention. I'm guessing that doesn't often happen when you are doing the crosswords.

SolidGoldBrass Wed 06-Mar-13 15:29:36

Larry, the key point that every man needs to remember when he approaches a woman he doesn't know is that, while his intentions may be harmless she doesn't know that. There is a TEN PERCENT CHANCE that he's a rapist after all.

Do you have any figures to qualify that? It kind of seems quite high.

I read that there were about 95,000 recorded cases last year. As there are a number that don't report then I guess we could double that to 200,000. The male population is approx 30 million in the UK so this represents 0.67 percent of men. If 90 percent of victims already know their rapist then I would say that your claim is slightly out as this would mean that only 0.067 percent of men walking about are likely to be rapists.

Given we have approx 30 million women in this country then that leaves us with a ratio meaning it is highly unlikely for a woman to be raped by a random stranger.

I'm not putting a positive spin on being raped (naturally) but I certainly don't equate it to the 10 percent chance that you've described.

I think far from being taught to accept no for an answer, men are fed a narrative that persistence is romantic, that "getting the girl" is a project that can be the work of years.

That sounds like what you might be on the receiving end of, StickEm, the belief that a woman is right for you and that surmounting her indifference and rejection and convincing her if your worth is part of the quest of wooing her.

And yes, it is harassment. And it's very difficult to deal with.

yy aThing, good point.

There is all that old shit about "getting the girl"

"I read that there were about 95,000 recorded cases last year. As there are a number that don't report then I guess we could double that to 200,000. The male population is approx 30 million in the UK so this represents 0.67 percent of men. If 90 percent of victims already know their rapist then I would say that your claim is slightly out as this would mean that only 0.067 percent of men walking about are likely to be rapists."

I barely know where to start with this.

But you seem to be suggesting that we need to knock the rapists who know their victims off the figures of likely rapists?!

On what basis? That if they rape women they know they are not dangerous to strangers

I don't think sexual advances should be accepted. Wny would that be OK?

Those figures Dazzler quoted also don't take into account rapists that didn't rape last year. Just because they raped someone 10/20/30 years ago doesn't mean they aren't a rapist.

It sucks that you are being harrassed at work, StickEm. Yes it's harassment if he keeps interrupting you in your work and keep getting too close. Have you tried something like this? Do others know that he is bothering you?

Pretzel, what a marvellous hint that is. Because the man either has to back off and leave the woman alone, or do something that makes it obvious to other people that he's a pest and the woman is not 'making a fuss about nothing.

"As there are a number that don't report then I guess we could double that to 200,000"

A number that don't report?

That number would be 85 - 90%.

So you need to do more than double the number of reported rapes to get to the real number. Only 1 to 1 and a a half in 10 rapes is reported.

As if you didn't know.

AThingInYourLife Wed 06-Mar-13 16:23:13

You've missed the bit of the discussion where SolidGoldBrass said to Larry that approaching a stranger is a bad thing because you have a 10 percent chance of talking to a rapist. To quote again:

Larry, the key point that every man needs to remember when he approaches a woman he doesn't know is that, while his intentions may be harmless she doesn't know that. There is a TEN PERCENT CHANCE that he's a rapist after all.

I'm not willfully neglecting the men that rape their partners or people they do know. I was referring to those that you don't know.

AbigailAdams

Of course you make a valid point but given so many men are not convicted then we simply do not know if the previous/next years offenders are repeat offenders, men that suddenly decide to rape a woman or rapists that are still in steady relationships. Sadly we just don't have a clue who is walking about and who isn't but either way the chances are pretty slim if you look at the figures over the past years.

Again, I'm in no way justifying it or trying to put a positive spin on it but I would hate for my wife to think that 1 in 10 men she randomly speaks to could be a/her rapist (as I genuinely don't think this to be the case). By the same token I would be sad of the day when women were scared of talking to me for fear that I were that 1 in 10. For sure, the stat needs to be zero but this is another discussion entirely.

I appreciate that this discussion is about sexual advances but I think the type that Larry has been talking about isn't the full-on come-on type but striking up a conversation in the hope that it may lead toward friendship > dates > relationship. I'm guessing a small fraction of relationships start from such random encounters where a woman did not feel imposed upon.

To be honest I've never met a woman in this manner although I do often speak to male/female strangers in random situations. Is this any different, except from the fact that I have no sexual agenda? I personally wouldn't try and start a relationship in this way and fortunately all of my relationships have commenced due to a mutual understanding that we were both interested (via work/friends). However, there is no doubt that some women like to be chased and whilst some on here hate the very thought of it, people's preferences and tolerance of strangers varies wildly, which is part of the reason we have this problem.