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!

Of course Dazzler is a man. Look at this classic piece of mansplaining:

"Do you understand the concept of humans as sociable animals? I've spent parts of my life in various places in the world and people are very different depending on where you go. As what I would consider a 'rational' human being I tend to adapt my social level to my surroundings."

1. "do you understand the concept...?" typical patronising intro. AFAIK Dazzler knows nothing about me. I could be a professional anthropologist for all he knows.
2. "As sociable animals" - with a suitably crashing, immediate mistake. If you are talking about humans as animals, you mean they are social animals. If you are talking about human characteristics between particular individuals, some are more sociable than others. They are different words with different meanings.
3. This is important because, as social animals, we tend to live in groups; as sociable or unsociable people we tend to respond differently to different sorts of approaches. Clumsily mixing this up has rendered whatever Dazzler is trying to say functionally meaningless. However, bravely - or obliviously - he ploughs on:
4. "I've spent parts of my life in various places in the world and-" oooh you big-man-traveller you. How did you know that I have only been to the local shops? (clue: I haven't only been to the local shops.)
5. "people are very different wherever you go." So how does this fit in with social / sociable animals, then, as a blanket category?
6. "As what I would consider a "rational" human being" - glad you've got those caveats there, Dazzler. As what I consider to be a "teapot" (I can consider myself to be anything I like, as long as I put it in "inverted commas", like Miranda's mother), I think you are talking nonsense.
7. "I tend to adapt my social level to my surroundings." What, like you are doing here? (snort.)

7b. The use of "level" is fascinating. Everything is a hierarchy, isn't it, for people like this. A clumsy word that gives something away.

It's all fascinating. I could go on like this for hours.

It can get a bit wearing when it happens too often and when the man is the boss etc it can put women in a difficult position which is why most work places ban it of course.

I think the current climate means men now realise women don't accept it and that's a good thing. The pressure must be kept up.

Sexual advances should not be a part of life.

I give women as much consideration as I do any other human being. As I've said previously, eye contact, facial expression and also body language is usually enough to give me a sense of whether someone is receptive to conversation. If a woman looks at me and smiles (without any provocation by me) or gestures then it's usually fair to say that it's ok to strike up a conversation. If I don't 'feel' it then I don't do anything at all.

Often it is the woman that instigates and I am all to happy to reciprocate. In this instance I don't consider whether I may be imposing on her because she has opened up the interaction. Again, as I mentioned previously (as did Larry) women often speak to me when I am out with my kids.

I'm not trying to be overly casual about it but the women that instigate conversations with me clearly do not consider whether they may be making me feel uncomfortable or that they may be imposing on my time. I have no idea if these women are trying to hit on me or if they're just being sociable. I would think the latter. Of course I'm conscious of making women feel uncomfortable. Most decent men are - hence my saying that I gauge people before opening my mouth. But really, if women feel they can instigate a conversation with me then why should I curtail the behaviour/life experience that these women have helped to shape just because there are a few on here that object to it? Seriously?

I will stop gauging and talking to random women when random women stop striking up conversations with me. I think that seems fair. You may not like it and that's your perogative but for good/bad that's how I'm going to continue living my life.

PromQueenWithin

Anyone capable of following a thread of conversation should be able to pick up the flow of discussion without making unbelievably wide interpretations. Even now, TeiTetua has said: "I'm astonished that there are men trying to be taken seriously by feminists (can they actually want to be seen as feminists???) who are somehow defending this kind of behaviour". Unbelievable to say the least.

Then curryeater, "Is Dazzler a man or a woman btw?"

It really does defy all comprehension. Being a long time lurker I've seen this time and time again and am surprised I've been sucked into it.

JugglingFromHereToThere Thu 07-Mar-13 15:18:11

100% agreed.

curryeater

Oh my days.

curryeater

what are you trying to prove, Dazzler, with your ridiculously long and content-free post of 16.12? Is it:

a. Everything is ok between men and women, men are acting perfectly reasonably and the women on this thread who think not are WRONG; or

b. Everything you personally do is fine and reasonable and polite?

If a. well you are just wrong, aren't you.
If b., why? what do you have to prove, to whom? What is your investment in this? If you actually honestly sincerely thought that while some men are PITAs (and they are, because women on this thread find them so), but you are more subtle and considerate and never annoy women, and all the women in the world think this of you too.... if this is your position, why are you on this thread defending yourself?

I think you are tending more towards position a., (or a slightly weaker version of it) - I think you are personally invested in defending standard male behaviour because you suspect you are just a standard male and you are DETERMINED to make sure you can believe (and "prove") that that is a fine thing to be.

YY to curryeater's last few posts.

I think I love you a little bit, curryeater... but I will resist the temptation to sidle up to you and inquire, a little breathily, if you fancy a drink somewhere.

Whitegoldwielder: Men pestering groups of women, well this happens because a certain type of man doesn't percieve women as people but as objects, resources. And if he sees one he likes, and it doesn't appear to belong to anyone, well then he can just go and pick it up.

This is why women talking to or socialising with other women are interrupted by stupid, entitled men - they are not displaying any indication that they are owned, even temporarily, therefore they are available.

Larry, do you think the Sandwich Guy would have made loud comments about a physically imposing 15-55 year old male's ability to speak English if all said male was doing was not responding to him?

Meanwhile, in the "Discussions of the day / Most active" box over on the right:
"I was flashed today for the first time".

Ah, women are indeed fortunate that men initiate social interactions so readily.

Thank you

(smile to show I am taking the compliments in the spirit in which they are meant, rather than feeling oppressed by them, because like all the other humans, I am a social animal, innit)

but my other sociable animals, for playing with, larry and dazzling, have gone away. why? can they not take a joke? Are they miserable and uptight? Are they too selfish to interact and give me their time? Are they trying to deny the truth of being sociable animals? Or maybe they do not understand this concept.

(totally fails to consider possibility that they simply have other things to do)

Most of the recent cases have not just be about men talking to women. They have been hand on knee, hand on breast and up the front of top, patting on bottom, hand down back of skirt.

Exactly Xenia.

They haven't been "misunderstanding social cues". They haven't been making the first move because women like to be the "gatekeepers of sex" . They've been sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Curry,

I am happy to socialise with you any time :).

This thread is about sexual advances. There are three kinds (IMO). Firstly, ones which are outright unacceptable and often illegal. Others are crass and ill mannered. They should not happen but will, and people should be able to deal with them in the same way as they deal with ill mannered people in any other situation. Finally, there are those which some people would welcome but others hate. For instance, many women out with friends are very receptive to advances and some reading/working are happy to be interrupted and chat. Is it reasonable that because some people want their space "respected" that they should impose this view on all others, whether they welcome interruption or not? Surely this area is about reading signals and for the woman (or man) who is doing the chatting up to accept rejection with good grace but for the man (or woman) being chatted up to be able to reject someone with politeness and good grace as well?

Yes, pushing your hand down someone's chest who is a work colleague in a work situation or your hand on her knee is not acceptable. I have suffered a few instances over the years and it tends to be someone senior. I am not the sort of person who would be traumatised by it but it's not an easy situation these work sex pests put people in.

Even last year in a business meeting an ex MP (you could not make this up) touched me totally unexpectedly (fat ugly awful and even if he weren't it would have been wrong) and said the immortal words "fancy a bonk". You can hardly believe it would happen. I am laughing as I write it. What an idiot. I suppose he must just do that all the time with lots of women and occasionally a few agree. There is no need for that kind of thing. If work rules allow co workers to date then that person could instead ask the person out to dinner.

As for chatting to people I don't think anyone is wanting that to be banned in employed codes of conduct although some people just don't want to chat in which case they should say so...,. particularly if some chap on the pull has plonked his large bottom on the side of your desk looking down your top and supposedly having a friendly chat when often it is anything but.

For instance, many women out with friends are very receptive to advances and some reading/working are happy to be interrupted and chat.

They aren't Laz.

They are being polite and/or afraid.

If they were "happy" to be advanced upon or interrupted they would be looking up and around with an open friendly gaze LETTING PEOPLE KNOW

ffs

Xenia,

Your first instances fall into my category 1. They are against employment law and the person should be disciplined and, if persistent, ultimately sacked. And pushing one's hand down someone's chest is sexual harrassment.

Your second is ill mannered. The person concerned deserves a robust, loud and embarrassing "fuck off".

On this thread, when people talk about having their space and time respected, they are in effect asking for chatting up to cease.

Hully,

Oh crap. Have you ever been to a bar late at night? I don't think the woman intensely chatting to her friend who is next seen wandering outside with the bloke who has interrupted her for a snog or more is frightened or being polite. I have seen that kind of thing too many times to be counted during my middle aged life.

Some posts on this thread show such a disconnect with real life that it is hard to know how to respond.

You've got there at last! Hurrah!

"Chatting up" is UNWANTED