Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

I saw someone tweet "How do you know if a guy likes you?" and while I did not reply, I thought "You know, that's a good question."

Men are still expected to take the initiative, apparently, but if a guy tells someone they're cute or w/e it's sexual harassment*? So confusing.

* or so I hear on the internets, because I don't hit on people irl, or talk to random people that I don't know and have no reason to be talking to**
** I bet parents drilling "don't talk to strangers" into their kids is why we*** all seem to need dating apps**** today
*** this generation
**** I haven't used any of said apps, because "I don't have a job or vehicle why would anyone want to date me"

That was a bit of a tangent. Sorry about that.

It's a relevant tangent, IMHO.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Harassment is "aggressive pressure or intimidation." Sexual harassment is "harassment (typically of a woman) [in a workplace or other professional or social situation] involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks."

So don't use words like p****y, don't continue to ask after she says no, don't intimidate her. Easy. As long as you follow those rules, it's not sexual harassment.

...don't tell me, some people are calling any sexual advance that they don't like "sexual harassment". *sigh* I recall a tale, it might have been an urban legend, about a girl who accused anybody she didn't think "looked good enough" of sexual harassment. I hope to Armok people like that don't exist, but they probably do. GODDAMN IT WORLD, THIS IS AN ACTUAL ISSUE, STOP IT!

[Rolan7]

True, don't forget about power dynamics also though.  Otherwise innocent flirting from say, a manager, can be harassment because it might feel dangerous to say no.  Even unintentionally *shrug* which can be avoided with honest and respectful communication.

[wierd]

Dont forget the "victim culture" aspect of it all.

In my home state, there is no "common sense" arbitration on what constitutes sexual harassment. The defining factor is if the victim THINKS they have been harassed, THEN THEY HAVE BEEN.  Yes, the defining characteristic is the FEELING, not any specific act.

A co-worker winks and smiles, and it makes you uncomfortable? BAM-- Sexual harassment.

Somebody calls you "sweety", or "sugar" (in the southern lexicon sense), and it makes you uncomfortable? BAM-- Sexual harassment.

In the mad rush to never blame the victim (even when the sense of being victimized really *IS* absurd, and following through will ruin innocent people's lives), we have created such absurd standards.

How do you prove that something made you feel uncomfortable? YOU CANT. The court has no choice but to accept the testimony a-priori, and assume the statement is ontologically true, and proceed from there.  Why do you think HR fucking HATES sexual harassment claims?

What happens when you cannot defend against an accuser? Miscarriage of justice, and kangaroo courts.

(This is one of the poster children for how well-meaning progressivism that is NOT well thought out in implementation fucks everyone over, and makes people more willing to vote for somebody like Trump.)

You can read more about it here:
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/upload/currentissues.pdf

straight from the equal employment opportunity people.
relevant verbiage on page 4.

The arbitrating factor is the "welcomeness" of the exchanges, and guess what- they dont even need to be directed at YOU for you to be able to lodge a title VII claim with HR.  You just have to feel it makes the workplace hostile or toxic.  Your FEELING is the arbitrating factor.

I understand that how people feel impacts their lives, but so does having a suit brought.

Observe said chilling effects, as discussed by others prior.

Ladies, men are NOT telepaths, and they have to deal with the reactions of the rest of the women in the workplace as well. He cant just rush up to you, and follow you around like a puppy dog lavishing attention on you. Other women in the workplace will find it vulgar, and file complaints. That means men are not welcome to approach you on anything remotely related to initiating a relationship, or even could possibly, maybe, be conceived of as being related to initiating a relationship.  That kind of cold turkey cessation is the only way to fully, and reliably remain in compliance with the laws as they currently are. anything else is dangerously risky in a very real, legal, "oh shit, my career and livelihood!" way. 

It is why the rule of thumb is "Never date a co-worker."

The sad part is that most people spend the vast majority of their time as adults, AT THE WORKPLACE.  Patterns of behavior established at the workplace can and do carry over to private life.

Then you end up with the "Why wont men ever hit on me? Am I ugly or something?" neurosis women are now complaining about.  Rather than honestly evaluate how hostile laws like this have made the situation, the answer is clearly that men are pigs... somehow... for not being pigs... Yeah. That makes total sense.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

...oh, shit, it's that bad? The laws themselves? Damn it. Is there a petition or a website or anything that's working to fix this... or did it collapse under the thousands of SJWs screaming "misoginiiiiiist"...

[Rolan7]

Well yeah, for better or worse, the legal system is strongly "affirmative action" for women.  They get the benefit of the doubt.
Is that *completely* wrong?  I don't really think so, for similar reasons as I support racial affirmative action.  But when it comes to condemning people without proper evidence, I think it goes too far.  Including when it's trial-by-media, or community.

Ladies, men are NOT telepaths, and they have to deal with the reactions of the rest of the women in the workplace as well.

Yes

It is why the rule of thumb is "Never date a co-worker."

Maybe not *never*-never, but you did say it's a rule of thumb.  Yeah.  Tread carefully with people you're forced to see on a weekly basis.  That can get awkward.

[wierd]

again, nobody wants to side against the "poor, abused victim of sexual harassment" by asking what exactly they felt was toxic or unwelcome about the behavior being complained about. Thats like asking a rape victim if she was dressed like a slut.

Unrealistic expections from life (the premise of the legislation, 'everyone has the right to never experience unwelcome interaction from people of a sexual nature', is unreasonable. To whit, I am a person who finds any display of public affection icky. to satisfy my 'rights', nobody can say, do, or allude to whatever kinky shit it is you do with each other at home. Is that reasonable? NO. IT IS NOT.) being placated by the courts, leads to unrealistic outcomes. Such as men being afraid to ask you out.

It is better for everyone when expectations are realistic, and nobody with extreme views gets to dictate policy as the lowest common factor.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Well yeah, for better or worse, the legal system is strongly "affirmative action" for women.  They get the benefit of the doubt.
Is that *completely* wrong?  I don't really think so, for similar reasons as I support racial affirmative action.  But when it comes to condemning people without proper evidence, I think it goes too far.  Including when it's trial-by-media, or community.

IIRC there's some law or Constitutional section about how a trial should go, that you need evidence to judge someone as guilty, the "innocent until proven guilty" thing. It might just be a very important custom, though.

Indeed: When affirmative action starts violating one of the most sacred principles in the the American criminal justice system, it's gone too far.

[Rolan7]

Yeah...  exactly.  There's a reason we have innocent until proven guilty, or at least we should.

[Rolan7]

Well, yeah.
Because we don't actually have "innocent until proven guilty", and that is very scary.

[wierd]

ninja x2

re, video refutation
Which only works when there is something physical, which can have evidence to disprove.

With sexual harassment, the thing injured is the psyche, and the only real evidence is the claim.

Again, I honestly get grossed out by any public display of affection. How do you disprove my statement of this fact?

The law, as written, says I have the RIGHT to not feel unwelcome or toxic exposure to statements or acts of a sexual nature.  Having to be in a room where two people are playing tonsil hockey is such an experience for me. Very distracting and unwelcome.

The deal is, I recognize that I am the anomalous one, and that my discomfort is better than imposing a dystopia on everyone else. I thus willfully refuse to report it when I see people sneak a kiss at work, or talks about whatever nasty kinky thing that turns them on, if they are at least trying to be discrete.

I do that because I value other peoples happiness.

Most people value their own desires first and foremost, and it leads to bad places, like this one.

[Rolan7]

To be pedantic...  Do you have a right to not suffer unwelcome advances, or to not suffer them after you've rebuffed them?  I'm actually not sure.

I *assume* that it's the latter, unless the advance is offensively crude or carries an implied threat (IE, the CEO hitting on a mailgirl, or a manager hitting on her direct subordinate).

[Neonivek]

The reason we have the law written as they currently are (in some places in the USA, not all) is due to an overperception that people are "getting away with sexual harassment".

The statistics on it count every single person who isn't charged as "getting away with the crime" which helps to build this paranoia.

So we built laws that basically allow no way out other than to just deny ever being there, doing an action, or anything else.

One of the MANY reasons never EVER to talk to a police officer without a lawyer no matter how innocent you are.

---

But honestly overzealous laws like these go away eventually... Kind of... It usually takes a supreme court ruling.

[Reelya]

Sexual harrassment also seems much more universal than you'd expect.

e.g. 56% of highschool girls say they've been sexually harassed. And we can stop talking there, and that's the typical headline figure. But 40% of highschool boys also say they've been sexually harassed in the same surveys, and there's also a well-known bias in which male respondents are less likely to report this sort of stuff than female respondents (it's much less socially acceptable for a male respondent to label themselves a victim). So the numbers are probably even more gender equal than 56-40.

40% is also pretty much half the male population, which also kind of contradicts the narrative that only LGBT males would be harassed. Regardless of the content of the harassment (being called gay etc), it's pretty universal.

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/11/09/survey-nearly-half-of-students-sexually-harassed-in-school

[wierd]

that is because the definition of harassment is absurd.

you get absurd statitics from absurd definitions.