So now flirting or asking a girl out is sexual harassment

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

But faux-feminists were held hostage by some ridiculous belief that you have to vote Democrat or Republican.

They choose for themselves like everyone else..they are not held hostage, nor hijacked.

You can disagree with their choice, but to claim they didn't have one is not accurate.

a reply to: xstealth

So now flirting or asking a girl out is sexual harassment

Yes, unless of course you're a girl.

a reply to: Indigo5

I didn't claim they didn't have a choice. You did.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
I think you have misunderstood what I am, what I do, and the reason I do it. I do not behave like a gentleman because it makes others happy. It does not. Some of my friends, although they find it useful at times to have a gentleman as a friend, continuously tell me that my unwillingness to alter my path even slightly frustrates them, because they see it as something which prevents me from getting ahead, from competing in the dating market for example, which has precisely no use for a fellow of my calibre.

That is possible, and since you have taken the time and effort to make a detailed post to me directly, I will read it in full and consider everything you have mentioned. Regardless of the response after reading it, thank you for doing so, you have earned my respect in that regard, even if you deny everything I said in my previous post directed at you.

They also find it frustrating when they are trying to drink me under the table, but force of will and a necessity to remain capable of uprightness and logical thought prevent me from succumbing to even the most inhuman levels of alcohol consumption. But that is by the by.

I wasn't referring to your relations with people in real life activities, I was referring to your interactions with people on these sorts of topics on ATS. If you feel your behaviour in real life relates to your right to discuss these types of issues on ATS and I am attacking that right, then NO, that was not my argument. This isn't so much about you and what defines you, it's more about your willingness or unwillingness to recognise a problem you might not be aware exists. (I have raised that concern only once with you on one other topic, and gave similar reasons then. If you remember the topic, then it should confirm in your mind that you being a gentlemen in real life and sticking to your principles has nothing to do with the issues I raised in this topic either.)

I am a gentleman because it makes ME happy to be so. Like many things that are worth doing in this world, it is not easy, but it is worth a great deal TO ME, to occupy the position in life that I have made for myself. I have been given in life, many reasons to fail to respect myself, to fail to love myself even slightly, to sublimate myself in favour of the needs of others, or simply to make my life easier. But I do respect myself, and although I do not think I am in any way a glorious thing, I do love myself enough. Not too much, not too little. Enough. And I do NOT sublimate myself willy nilly, only taking myself out of the picture entirely, the better to be a good friend when people need it, when it is absolutely necessary. I am not a gentleman for the purposes of other people, but for my own purposes. The fact that occasionally people come to appreciate the solidity of what I represent, when they really need someone unflappable and unrelenting to stand beside them, or hold them up when the chips are down, is a happy, a very happy accident.

Thank you for clarifying that. It really does seem that you are a strong man of his principles and I highly respect that. There is no point sacrificing your principles automatically just because you encounter a significant issue you feel should be solved, otherwise why exist at all? The trouble I am seeing is that your principles are preventing you from discussing the content of this topic honestly. That is my opinion and while it would be impossible for me to prove anyway as I don't have direct access to your psyche, I feel in my long interactions with you on this website, which have not been always pleasant, I believe my opinion is valid and worth CONSIDERING for yourself. Of course that is up to you, so I won't go any further.

With that in mind, with it understood that I do what I do because it pleases me greatly to do so, affords me a measure of self respect and the like, you must also understand that revelations of the nature you refer to in the post to which I am responding, have precisely no consequence or affect on my choice to live life the way I do. They do not, in and of themselves, or in combination with any other factor, induce me to lay down my character and my dignity, my self respect. These things, you see, are the only things that cannot be taken from me by force of arms, or the arm of the law.

Your tenacity to adhere to your principles seems very admirable.

It is also wrong to consider me to be one who merely plays the gentleman. I simply am one. This is not a game, this is not a persona I erect, this is who I am. This is, as the young people might say, how I roll.

To clarify and I admit my last post was not clear on this at the time and I AM obligated to address that right now, so I will: I meant utilising your natural tendency to be a gentlemen when discussing topics in regard to gender issues is not helpful to examining gender issues or finding a solution. When I said "playing the gentlemen" I was NOT referring to an act of deception (insincerity) to gain favour from others, but an unhelpful tendency to "just go on viewing the issue as you always have". "playing" was perhaps not the right word, I will refrain from using it when interacting with you to avoid confusion.

Continued — 1 of 2 pages worth of replies done

I find it very difficult to understand why it is, you think the information contained within this thread, ought to make me change my position. From what I understand of it, all the information in this thread has said, is something I have known for many, many years. My beliefs are outmoded, the modern age has no use for them, or particularly, for me as a person. That does not mean that I will stop holding those beliefs, because I still have a use for them. I still maintain that the ability for me to respect myself is a necessity, regardless of how little use the world at large may have for me, or what I represent. I am who I am, and ridiculous, antiquated and anachronistic as it may be, it pleases me greatly to be the man I am, rather than pretend to be something I am not. I consider myself very lucky in that regard, despite the limitations it may place upon my progress from time to time.

This will sound harsh, I assure you it is not intended to come across that way but still might: if you admit your views are somewhat "antiquated" in regard to this particular topic, why are you posting about something which you know so little about? I don't have a problem with you expressing your beliefs, NOBODY should be prevented from doing so, but when you are denying reality when dong so just because of your sticking to your principles, you are harming the ability for the issues raised to be taken seriously. NO, I am not saying 'stop posting here and only stick to topics you are specialised in!", I am saying consider your own principles in relation to the topic at hand and ask yourself, "Am I really concerned with the issue being raised to the point that I need to comment on this topic? What am I gaining by doing so? It seems very little (other than what I mentioned in my last post).

What are others gaining? People like me and others seeing things from my point of view are less likely to be gaining, besides getting a better understanding about you as a person. People that vehemently disagree with me and others who are threatening their misguided beliefs being considered as the norm (mainly radical feminists) are benefiting greatly every time you post. And I assure you, most of them (not all) are only using your “sticking to your principles” argument ON THIS THREAD in regard to being a gentlemen because it serves their agenda to confirm their misguided beliefs. As for the others raising valid and important concerns in relation to the topic? They are, for the most part, ignored by the opposition because they have “your” endorsement on the issue, so self-reflection seems even more unnecessary for them to consider.

I know you are a humble person and highly respect that as well, but the time for being humble in regards to "ignoring" that you are a long-time, established, respected and strong advocate of "sticking to one's own principles and everything else works itself out" is OVER; it's not in line with reality — especially not in regard to this topic. When you give an endorsement that “I really don't see a problem at all. It's always been this way. Things have not changed for ME at all.” You ARE harming discussion of the issue. If you were not aware of this, I hope you now are. Keep participating as much as you like, but from this moment forward please don't pretend you are completely oblivious to everything I have just said in this very reply. You are smart and reasonable, don't pretend you aren't when it comes to topics like these.

Why is it you think, that I ought to change the fabric of my character, to keep up with a world I find absolutely rife with detestable and ignoble behaviour?

I don't, never suggested you should and wouldn't expect my desire (even if it were what you just described) as being a good reason for you to change. I don't know you in real life and you don't know me. I can only go by what I have seen in my interactions with you on this website and vice versa.

This is not an attack on your character, a plea to silence you or trying to suggest I am smarter and more knowledgeable than you when it comes to this topic, it is merely asking you to re-examine whether you are willing to put your principles on hold TEMPORARILY when discussing (not acting any differently in your life) these types of topics so that you can see if you are truly being objective. If you CAN do that (which I already indicated I believe you can do), then start demonstrating it in your replies. If you CANNOT, then consider whether you should be interacting on these topics.

Completed — 2 of 2 pages worth of replies done

I understand that sometimes a person's intentions are genuinely innocent and they just don't know how to go about it, so they flirt with a girl and it gets taken the wrong way.

On the other hand, a lot of predators try to pass off predatory behavior as innocent, and then get angry when their supposedly "innocent" gestures get "taken the wrong way".

When I was trying to get this creep at a bar away from bothering my attractive lady who is a friend, I did it by getting him into a long conversation. He seemed lonely enough to just want to talk with anyone, and so I just listened to him tell me about his life. And of course, with his guard down, he proceeds to tell me about previous women he's been with and taken advantage of, while telling me about his interesting life he wants to write a book about.

When the time came to suggest that maybe he should go write his book instead of hanging out at the bar with me (and troubling my friend), I had enough ammunition to disarm any attempt to create a conflict out of it, pretend he's being unfairly misjudged, ... etc...

But doing that takes a lot of skill. If a woman simply tells the guy she's not interested, he can say she was overly harsh and didn't need to embarass him. If she politely evades, then he can say she should have directly told him she wasn't interested.

The guy isn't always going to admit to your face that there is a good reason not to date him. Sometimes it's just going to be a creepy feeling about him.

So what does a girl do about a guy who is "putting himself out there", and in a way where he has clearly indicated that he will get his feelings hurt if she refuses? What is the winning move? (By "winning move" I mean the one where she can get out of dating him, without serious repercussions)

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Indigo5

You either hit the nail on the head or have no idea what you're talking about-that's up for debate.

My point is that many women objectify men as much as men do to women. If Megan Fox rubbed your groin you wouldn't be against it, but if her grandmother grabbed your junk would you still be turned on? the same applies to women. Would a woman rather be slapped on the rump by Channing Tatum or his grandfather?

If you don't know the answer then you don't know women.

She actually did grope her boyfriend once, in public. And it made the news.

www.metacafe.com...

originally posted by: Taggart

originally posted by: xstealth
I feel bad for you single guys.

If you ask a girl out or flirt with one you can lose your job over it, ask Bill O'Reily.

Now Sean Hannity is being accused.

Debbie Schlussel said the married primetime anchor invited her back to his hotel in Detroit after the pair met at a book signing. After the conservative commentator turned down the father-of-two's advances, she claims she wasn't invited back on his show. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So the direction this is going you guys will be sued for catcalling or flirting with a woman.

I'm not going to comment on the ethics of a married man flirting with a girl since this is unproven, I want to point out the direction these allegations are going.

In my opinion sexual harassment should only be recognized in extreme cases, not when a man tries to pick you up. That's what men do. (not me, im married faithfully (in case my wife is reading)(i'm being honest though))

Workplace is a place to work, not flirt and pull women.
It's been like that in a lot of workplaces since at least the 90's.
This isn't new, I'm sure it's been like that in a corporation like FOX for at least that long too.
Employers also try stop that practice so if the two employees fall out it doesn't carry on in to the workplace.

At Boeing in Everett Washington it's a real meat market,. Almost sickening sometimes. You see people holding hands walking to their work areas like it's a romantic stroll for two and such.. And you see much more than flirting there. That's a pretty big workplace as well.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


I guess shes ok because to be harassment it has to be an unwanted advance. Like if you ask a girl at work if she wants to go back to your place and she says yes your good.

originally posted by: xstealth

So the direction this is going you guys will be sued for catcalling or flirting with a woman.

In my opinion sexual harassment should only be recognized in extreme cases, not when a man tries to pick you up. That's what men do. (not me, im married faithfully (in case my wife is reading)(i'm being honest though))

In Los Angeles, after each Metro station stop theres a PA over the train intercom on sexual harassment which it states will not be tolerated and describes as "including any unwanted looking, gestures or remarks".

In my opinion sexual harassment is only such when a denial for sexual favor(s) results in the loss of professional advancement.

a reply to: Ripper777

I used to think sexual harassment was my wifes period.
I'd advance, get shut down and feel totally harassed.

originally posted by: Ripper777

In Los Angeles, after each Metro station stop theres a PA over the train intercom on sexual harassment which it states will not be tolerated and describes as "including any unwanted looking, gestures or remarks".

Thank God that is not a reality (yet) in my country. How unnecessary and annoying.

In my opinion sexual harassment is only such when a denial for sexual favor(s) results in the loss of professional advancement.

Your "opinion" is actually what the definition used to be, and is still what most reasonable people would agree with if they were aware of the level of abuse that is exercised under the gradually broadening definition used now.

I never fail to marvel how feminism has produced such great harmony and mutual respect between the sexes in our culture.

a reply to: xstealth

It's pretty clear the OP doesn't socialize often. If you are at work, you are expected to work, not hook-up. If a guy was to approach a female co-worker, and suggest that they might engage in some sort of out-of-work activity, the woman could go to her boss and report that guy. And yeah, the guy should expect to be talked to about appropriate work environment behavior. Then if that guy continues his inappropriate behavior, that guy should expect the repercussions to increase, up to an including termination of employment.

In the real world, when a guy approaches a woman for a date, he pretty much knows right away what that woman's attitude is. If she says no, the guy should drop his pursuit, as opposed to thinking that the woman actually just wants the guy to try harder. Guys who think a denial is a challenge are the ones who lose their jobs - like the idiots at FOX, many of whom have been accused of harassment now, by several different woman. Unless all of these woman are conspiring against the poor unfortunate men of FOX'NEWS', (extremely unlikely), more sexist, out-of-touch, over entitled white guys will soon be updating their resumes. Tucker, you a$$, I'm looking right at you.... Hannity? You're a big fat target. Couldn't happen to two more deserving a holes. Fingers crossed

a reply to: xstealth

Of you don't. You're not the woman having to deal with the likes of Bill O coming on to you over and over again, even though he knows you're not interested. People like Bill, the self-entitled, think they can do whatever they want, because they're rich. You have a daughter? You know any young women? Ask them how often they have to deal with some guy coming on to them when aren't interested. I'll bet you're surprised.

O'Really?? Is that you?? What Bill O'Really!? did was not flirting. This new generation lead by Trump is really started to scare me...


Creepy old somehow married skeletor asking you to come to a hotel room is probably not the ideal night out for girls one would think...it's good to see Karma still works though.
Bill O'really has had this coming. BTW didn't he say he was stepping back because of love for his kids? Where was that love when he attempted to ruin his marriage?

NaS had a few words for him last decade...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Anyone who lodges a formal sexual complaint that is proven false, as opposed to failure to prove guilt, has their name immediately added to the sexual offender's list and is liable for whatever damages they initially sought (loss of job, monetary, etc.)

This is brilliant - there should be life altering consequences for people who make these serious false allegations.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah...I had to reread Kali's post...I thought I was misinterpreting. After reading about how the business you were involved with shut down and your examples here, I don't consider it unusual that you would defend yourself with a recorder. In fact those people calling you creepy should have a hard look at themselves and their social interactions with other humans.
They are not living in the real world.

$5 recorder - priceless in defending yourself when you know what the real world is like

The word Freedom cannot be told enough to control freaks and sensitive PC crap.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

She should have been smacked upside her pointed empty little head.

Yeah she should have been "smacked" figuratively, imagine if you asked her to donate towards a "get well" card for a work colleague that was recovering in hospital?

Now you know why the Islam attitude toward women is at it is. If this is what western women want, keep up the attacking men that find you attractive and want to start up a relationship. You'll just become obedient property or be eliminated.