Vincent Vega might argue that point.
Morgan Freeman accused of sexual harassment
- Thread starter terley
- Start date
Having to use a fictional character to prove a point, kinda proves mine
That shows how successful feminism has been in promoting the idea that there is no difference between those things, that they (and many other things too) are all sexual harassment (but only when a man does it, of course). "metoo" is just the latest progression of that idea, a push further into the mindset of witch-hunting, sexism and lynch mobs. It wasn't the start of it. It won't be the end of it.
You mean apart from the fact Harvey Weinstein, the catalyst for the #metoo movement, has just been charged with actual rape...and not flirting
But apart from that slight fly in the ointment of your argument, I'll wait till I see flirting being made illegal before I worry about it (because it aint going to happen)
I don't disagree with it, but I think asim18 has a valid point.
It's true that what's considered acceptable and what isn't is just a matter of what enough people with enough power agree on in that time and place, with complete disregard for individuals and complete disregard for motivation, i.e. intent. I don't disagree with that. But I think asim18 has a valid point when he questions why it should be that way and why there should be complete disregard for individuals and complete disregard for motivation, i.e. intent.
Also related is the issue of whether we should allow people whose political ideology is rooted in Victorian sexist stereotype and prudishness to determine what is and what isn't acceptable. That's what's happening, but we should be asking if it's really a good idea.
Do you define "anything in a sexual nature regarding touching" the way asim18 is suggesting, i.e. dependent on the motivation of person doing the touching, or the way people disgreeing with him are suggesting, i.e. dependent on what enough people with enough power in that time and place decide is sexual, regardless of whether or not the person doing the touching is doing it with any sexual motivation?
I routinely have people pawing at me. They touch me, stroke me, grab hold of me. It bothers me. I'd much rather they didn't do it. But it's not harassment, let alone sexual harassment, because of intent. They don't have any malicious intent and they don't have any sexual intent (or if they do, they hide it extremely well). It's just the custom they are used to - they regard it as a normal part of communication, as if speech was transmitted though skin contact rather than through the air and ears.
Nicely done - you take a single extreme example and pretend it's the whole thing despite knowing that it's extremely far from the whole thing and extremely far from being even vaguely representative.
You are, of course, being dishonest. But you know that. Are you a politician? If not, you might like to consider it. You obviously have the most important skill for a politician.
You mentioned #metoo and the catalyst for that was Harvey Weinstein....someone who has now been charged with serious sexual offences. How is that a single extreme example, it literally is the basis for the #metoo movement
But please point out where people have been charged for flirting.
only if you take it as a point and not a pop culture joke.Having to use a fictional character to prove a point, kinda proves mine
You mentioned #metoo and the catalyst for that was Harvey Weinstein....someone who has now been charged with serious sexual offences. How is that a single extreme example, it literally is the basis for the #metoo movement
1) It isn't the basis. It didn't start the movement. It's not what the movement is about. It is simply wrong to say it's the basis for the movement.
2) Even if it was the catalyst, that does not mean that it's the whole of the movement or even vaguely representative of the movement. Which is clearly isn't. The same movement also includes, as one random example, the idea that Michael Douglas is guilty of sexual harassment because 32 years ago he was on the phone to a friend and a third person overheard him saying something "raunchy" to that friend. Why don't you cite that as the basis of the movement? How would you react to someone who did?
Why? I haven't said they have been. You're asking me to substantiate something you made up as a diversion and ascribed to me. If you want an example of something you made up, you should be the one who looks for it. It has nothing to do with me.
Actually it's not "when a man does it" its "when somone I dont find attractive does it".
Same for creepy and romantic.
If theyr e into you the surprise impromptu flower delivery is so sweet.
If they're not its a creepy stalker move.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,177
Is there anyone left 
I'm genuinely curious of the context here.
Who are these people and what custom is it that has grabbing and stroking as parts of daily communication.
I'm pretty varied in my company but outside of family/partners the only people who ever "stroke" me are creepy dudes who really don't know how to flirt/hit on somone and see unannounced bicep stroking as an acceptable first interaction. As its unwanted I suppose it comes under sexual harassment. Although if they where fit id probbaly be less annoyed which bring me back to my previous point about attraction being a big differnce in weather something is harrasemrnt
Slight caveat to that
"its when somone I dont find attractive does it and they don take no for an answer"
The context is my daily life at work. The people are customers. It really is a normal part of communication for them. I have no idea why, but it is. It's always older women, so I'm assuming it's something that used to be the custom.
I wouldn't call it sexual harassment because it's neither sexual nor harassment. I think intent matters a great deal.
It's sex-specific, so it's "when a man I don't find attractive does it". You're don't have men accusing women of sexual harassment for looking at them, sending them flowers or "speaking raunchily" in a private phone call someone else overheard, etc, and if any man did they'd just be laughed at and/or villified.
There's no requirement for "they don take no for an answer" and saying that it's not harassment unless the woman objects is called "blaming the victim".
You mentioned #metoo and the catalyst for that was Harvey Weinstein....someone who has now been charged with serious sexual offences. How is that a single extreme example, it literally is the basis for the #metoo movement
But please point out where people have been charged for flirting.
Charged by whom, the twitter/Facebook kangaroo court or actual court?
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2015
- Posts
- 1,527
- Location
- Tewkesbury, UK
Is there anyone left
I am thinking that too!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,224
Charged by the police.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44257202
And now indicted by a grand jury
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44315194
(By the way "an actual court" don't charge you, the court oversee the trial of the charges)
What? How the hell do you work that out
You have a very strange way of looking at things. The point is no one is going to be charged for harrassment if they flirt/approach/chat up a woman she says no/not interested and you move on. It's only if you "Don't take no for an answer" and keep pestering them that it becomes harrassment.
Funny how Tefal understood exactly what was meant without further explanation and didn't think it was "blaming the victim" .....
Real court, in NY. Obviously he is still innocent until proven guilty at the moment, but it's not looking good for him. So I don't see the problem, what looks like a genuine accusation has been made the police have investigated and obviously found enough evidence to charge him with serious sexual offences.
I'm still waiting for anyone to show me a case where someone has been charged for flirting
