mantra wrote on Jun 30
th, 2009 at 11:09am:
Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 29
th, 2009 at 10:04pm:
locutius - oh, everyone has rights.
Some have more rights than others.
I bet bar maids would not have as many rights as barristers do.
That's why barmaids get told to wear something nice for men to look at.
A lot of women still enjoy looking good for men yet today some women get offended if they're given compliments, whistles or affectionately touched.
All those things are still allowed and legal. The complexity of the issue is that there are so many cultural and personal standards. The legislation is there to draw a line in the sand for a minimum of behaviour for the ininvited, unfamiliar and unwanted.
Stalkers probably think they are showing the hieght of flattery as well, if only their victim would understand and appreciate them standing outside their bathroom window masterbating, all would be good. Yes that is an extreme. But the point is that what is acceptable for one is not for another.
Less extreme example, there is a party up the road that has been playing loud music till 5am and skateboarders and hoons tearing up the street till dawn. Personally I start having fantasies about garrotting them, my 14 year old niece thinks it's cool. Luckily she is not writting the legislation that protects hardworking families from having to put up with that crap.
Affectionate touching particularly is dangerous ground, and rightly so. I remember a joke many years ago that is enlightening....What is the definition of Rape?.......Assault with a friendly weapon. Surprising how many woman don't find that funny.
mantra wrote on Jun 30
th, 2009 at 11:09am:
I think we've gone too far with sexism and part of the fun of being young is attracting attention from the opposite sex. Some of it isn't always welcome, but it doesn't deserve a court case or a sacking.
It deserves a court case if it is persistant, if it oversteps a verbal or behavioural signal that it is unwanted, if it is intentionally demeaning or derogatory. Some of it can be stupid and some of it can be confusing. Many years ago I had an in class argument with a female lecturer in Philosophy about some of these boundries for sexual harrassment. She claimed that asking someone out, on a date, was sexual harrassment as it was uninvited and unwanted attention. While I agreed that it may in many circumstances be uninvited (as in unexpected) it could not be categorised as unwanted until after the fact. At that point the refusal should be respected. Any other sequence or pre-empted guilt was just stupidity.
mantra wrote on Jun 30
th, 2009 at 11:09am:
Actions by men that were taken for granted in the 70's and 80's are now considered assaults and exploitation, but most of the women who protest the loudest aren't even attractive. They should be flattered that they get any attention at all.
Perhaps there will come a day when males just turn to each other and not bother trying to connect with a woman.
The actions of males in viking societies were taken for granted as well. Also the Roman's took for granted that a man could kill his wife and family being his property. Peasants could not speak against their master nor a wife against her husband. Times change.
Not sure what validity being attractive adds to someone rights or their potential to be wronged. What about how smart they are? Maybe someone who is really dumb and would otherwise have no social interaction should feel grateful at being lampooned as opposed to being left in peace, or at least respected and treated kindly.
Personally I find the woman in this story very unattractive, but that does not diminish her rights.
As for men turning to each other, maybe the Greeks were onto to something there but they took it just a step or two too far for my liking.