Has making a pass at a woman just become illegal?

The lawyers will love it, imagine the fees they can rack up. The first few days of the hearing will be agreeing what a woman is. Then a few more days arguing over the definition of a man. Then the defendant throws a curve ball by saying, "Actually I am an asexual walrus". Half way through the woman drops the charges as she's decided she likes the scallywag and they become an item.
 
nlel1975 said:
At least I’m not one of these rich blokes in their 60s that goes to Thailand to hook up with a 30 year old woman.
Click to expand...

Don't knock it.
I used to work with a bloke and during the 80s onwards he would go to Thailand every Potters Holidays and hook up with the same prostitute for two weeks and had no qualms about it.
He said it was all normal sex but she was at his beck and call and then for 50 weeks he went without nothing except for Mrs Palm and her 4 daughters.
As far as I know he still continued up until last year when he fell off a ladder, hurt his foot bad and had it amputated :(
 
Haggisman said:
Regardless of exactly what it is that is criminalised, there's a potentially more sinister side effect of this - most of the (potential) crimes being mentioned here are going to be almost impossible to prove and unlikely to have witnesses.

So either the supposed victim's claims are accepted at face value and the accused is deemed guilty regardless of lack of evidence, or the new law is basically pointless because there will be no way of proving what happened


You mean themslaughter? :p
Click to expand...

If its anything like the rape conviction rate which is very often he said/she said, I don't think men have much to be worried about.
 
I used to work with someone that claimed he went to see his "girlfriend" for 2 weeks every year in Thailand. Pretty sure he had her shacked up in a house at his expense for the full year.
 
Last edited:
Orangeade said:
But I clearly highlighted in my post that there is often a perception that gets skewed.

Take me for example, I know that I am easy going, grew up in a superb family with great values. I'm very rounded with everyone and I would feel 100% confident that if you asked anyone that they would agree that I'm perfectly decent.

If it transpired that a law would be introduced that could possibly criminalise my actions if they were misinterpreted then it's a problem. Because I would not take that risk. And that's a huge problem as it leads to even further divisions.

And to reiterate I'm not saying me slapping someone on the arse, I'm talking about a misunderstanding willfully or innocently....
Click to expand...
Whether that perception is skewed or whether your actions were misinterpreted (or any of the excuses others have come out with in this thread) would be judged in the courts if it ever got that far, that's why the reasonable person clause is in there. Is what this person did something that could be considered reasonable.

Chatting someone up is, I'd venture, is something most people would consider normal. Telling someone they look nice is what most reasonable people would consider normal, even winking at someone, if a little bit creepy, would probably be considered normal. Even a wolf whistle would probably be considered 'normal' by most people, all be it maybe a bit unwanted/pointless.

Going up to someone and grabbing their boobs or geting your toddger out would not, i suspect, be something that most people would consider reasonable.
 
skipper847 said:
I mean i dont go to gym but its like women there saying. Dont stare at us while we work out but i bet they do the same to men.
Click to expand...
You've just reminded me of something that happened at my gym yesterday.

A women in elastic (or spandex, whichever one of the material that hugs every contour of the body and leaves very little to the imagination) booty shorts was using the back extension machine/apparatus. Said machine is located in front of the incline bench. The poor dude on the bench was put in an awkward position, because sitting on the bench and looking straight ahead means staring directly at her ass. He decides to stand to the side of the machine, head down playing with his phone.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
Going up to someone and grabbing their boobs or geting your toddger out would not, i suspect, be something that most people would consider reasonable.
Click to expand...
Went to a school reunion in 2011 and one of the guys I went to school with got his toddger out briefly whilst we were in a bar in front of one of the woman. I didn’t think much of it and he had a small dick. The woman took a photo of it.
 
sidimmu said:
That has no comparison to a guy who travels half way round the world to sleep with younger women in desperate need of cash.
Click to expand...
Exactly they are both getting something out of it. My uncle did it, I couldn't really get my head around it at the time but there is nothing sinister about it. I was probably amused more than anything.
 
Murphy said:
Whether that perception is skewed or whether your actions were misinterpreted (or any of the excuses others have come out with in this thread) would be judged in the courts if it ever got that far, that's why the reasonable person clause is in there. Is what this person did something that could be considered reasonable.

Chatting someone up is, I'd venture, is something most people would consider normal. Telling someone they look nice is what most reasonable people would consider normal, even winking at someone, if a little bit creepy, would probably be considered normal. Even a wolf whistle would probably be considered 'normal' by most people, all be it maybe a bit unwanted/pointless.

Going up to someone and grabbing their boobs or geting your toddger out would not, i suspect, be something that most people would consider reasonable.
Click to expand...
That's not what the subject is about though.
 
nlel1975 said:
Went to a school reunion in 2011 and one of the guys I went to school with got his toddger out briefly whilst we were in a bar in front of one of the woman. I didn’t think much of it and he had a small dick. The woman took a photo of it.
Click to expand...

a6799badb25d908fd8a8ad4622f8b7be.gif
 
gingergundog said:
That's not what the subject is about though.
Click to expand...
Literally...
Chris Wilson said:
Quantifying "harassing" and by what metrics a "reasonable person", (as opposed to some vindictive, humourless vixen), may determine it to be such, is something you and her will presumably have to argue in the courts. Ain't life fun....?
Click to expand...
The law, and this thread that's discussing it, is literally about what a reasonable person would consider harassment.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
Whether that perception is skewed or whether your actions were misinterpreted (or any of the excuses others have come out with in this thread) would be judged in the courts if it ever got that far, that's why the reasonable person clause is in there. Is what this person did something that could be considered reasonable.

Chatting someone up is, I'd venture, is something most people would consider normal. Telling someone they look nice is what most reasonable people would consider normal, even winking at someone, if a little bit creepy, would probably be considered normal. Even a wolf whistle would probably be considered 'normal' by most people, all be it maybe a bit unwanted/pointless.

Going up to someone and grabbing their boobs or geting your toddger out would not, i suspect, be something that most people would consider reasonable.
Click to expand...

Your latter colourfully described examples are already fully covered by sexual assault and gross indecency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom