unsolicited sexual advances

[Kelliezgirl]

"The right to offend" is a tricky one: There are limits, of course.

Speaking as something of a free speech absolutist, very very few of them.

 

[nice90sguy]

One of my favourite comedians , Jerry Sadowitz, takes it to the limit, and then goes way beyond that. His show is titled "Not for Anyone". He goes out of his way to make every single member of the audience cringe at one point or another. Everything is fair game.

He was famous for outing a well-known TV celebrity, a pedophile (and worse), back in the 1980s. The celeberity in question was so powerful he got Jerry Sadowitz show axed, and he's been banned from TV ever since.

 

[FeralSmile]

This is a valid point, to what extent am I allowed to shut down any behavior by simply declaring it makes me feel uncomfortable?

You're always free to reject anything you don't want to be a part of. That rejection can consist of silence or explanation or insults or mockery or digression or whatever you wish.

You have no obligation to indulge any behavior that makes you feel uncomfortable, generally speaking. You might have relationships or agreements or employment that modify this, but we're talking about strangers on the internet here, and you owe them nothing.

 

[nice90sguy]

 

[John_Vandermeer]

There is of course the right to reject a sexual advance. But when things begin to slide into depriving somebody else of the right to risk a sexual rejection… i think things have gone to far.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

You're always free to reject anything you don't want to be a part of. That rejection can consist of silence or explanation or insults or mockery or digression or whatever you wish.

You have no obligation to indulge any behavior that makes you feel uncomfortable, generally speaking. You might have relationships or agreements or employment that modify this, but we're talking about strangers on the internet here, and you owe them nothing.

I agree with that, I don't think I was clear enough though.
The point I was trying to make is some people are critical of the "unsolicited" advance, apparently on the theory that some women won't like it.
Meaning they would consider it inappropriate for a man to introduce himself to a woman he doesn't know on the possibility she might feel uncomfortable. I find that ridiculous.

 

[nice90sguy]

I'm a case in point -- I'm one of those scary people who come on a bit too friendly with strangers -- striking up conversations on trains, with everyone and anyone. Women sometimes recoil, thinking I'm hitting on them -- which I never do. I'm just a bit "Forrest Gump", I guess. But I know it's their problem, not mine.

It's a real relief sometimes for me to go back to the US where people speak to strangers a lot more freely than they do in the UK.

 

[nice90sguy]

I discuss this a lot with my wife, who is a very self-confident person in many ways. She's been hit on a lot, and rarely, if ever, takes offence when it happens -- because she knows how to handle people; she stays in control of the situation pretty well, so she doesn't feel threatened by sexual advances.

 

[FeralSmile]

I agree with that, I don't think I was clear enough though.
The point I was trying to make is some people are critical of the "unsolicited" advance, apparently on the theory that some women won't like it.
Meaning they would consider it inappropriate for a man to introduce himself to a woman he doesn't know on the possibility she might feel uncomfortable. I find that ridiculous.

Some types of advances will be unwelcome. You can get a sense of whether your advances will be unwelcome, based on how aggressively you come on and how much you share and how quickly, and how the average person responds to that.

But really, the decision about how much is "too much" lies in the eyes of the person receiving the advance. How can it be otherwise?

I think it's good to be thoughtful about advances. Sending a dick pic without any sense that the other party wants it is very very likely to go poorly. You can choose to do so anyway, and hey, sometimes it'll be well received. People aren't a monolith. But there are trends, too, and if you care about how your advances are received, you can predict some things based on probabilities.

At the end of the day, everyone's different. We like and want different things. We'll accept and reject advances based on what we prefer. You don't know until you try, on one level. But at the same time, you can seek to avoid upsetting strangers if you wish to, or you can be the kind of person who's willing to risk being seen as rude and awful in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, they'll like it.

My bias is to err on the side of being considerate.

I think introducing yourself is always ok. Talking to someone and thoughtfully seeking common ground is ok. Most men and woman are open to this, in my experience. When you assume an outcome and leave their choice and free will out of the equation, when you send them dick pics under the assumption they want to see them or send messages telling them they're now your submissive (without any prior discussion) or tell them about the sexual acts you intend to perform on their bodies, you're not respecting their input at all. That's likely to be very unwelcome.

I don't think it's as complicated as it sounds, really. Treat others as people, not as props. Be considerate of how they'll receive what you're offering. And be ready to take "no" for an answer.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Years ago, I was talking to a rather sexily dressed woman about such things. She was mad about a guy who hit on her looking for a date.

Her: "I hate it when men like him ogle me as if I'm a piece of meat and hit on me!"
Me: "Didn't you dress this way to attract men?"
Her: "Yes, But not HIM!"

Apparently, she thought men should cover their eyes when she's around, ... except for those men she wants. But all others are supposed to know she doesn't want them staring at her.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I discuss this a lot with my wife, who is a very self-confident person in many ways. She's been hit on a lot, and rarely, if ever, takes offence when it happens -- because she knows how to handle people; she stays in control of the situation pretty well, so she doesn't feel threatened by sexual advances.

My experience with women who complain the most about a guy hitting on them is that it's frequently some weird combination of a humble brag and chasing victim clout.

If a woman comments she gets hit on a lot, then she's seen as being vain. But if she feigns horror at the thought she can't be bragging about it, and not only do we have to acknowledge how attractive she is to be garnering all this unwanted attention, but the poor thing is traumatized by it and needs our sympathy and support.

 

[Bramblethorn]

There is of course the right to reject a sexual advance. But when things begin to slide into depriving somebody else of the right to risk a sexual rejection… i think things have gone to far.

One of the difficulties with these "right to do X" conversations is that it's often very unclear what people actually mean by "having a right" to do something.

Sometimes it just means "the government isn't allowed to prevent me from doing it or punish me for doing it, as long as I'm willing to live with the consequences." And sometimes it means "I shouldn't have to face any adverse consequences from any quarter for doing this". Those aren't the same thing at all, but people will use "rights" to talk about both of them.

And sometimes it means "there should be places and times where I'm allowed to do X", and sometimes it means "I should be able to do X anywhere and any time I want, in any way I want". Again, those aren't remotely the same thing, but people often conflate the two.

Sometimes people hear a message like "if you hit on women in this particular forum, folk will think you're a jerk and maybe the site admins will even ban you", but they react as if they'd been told "the government has made it illegal for you to hit on women anywhere, under any circumstances".

Which of those discussions are people actually having here?

 

[nice90sguy]

In my case its just a general rant against intolerance

 

[FeralSmile]

Sometimes it just means "the government isn't allowed to prevent me from doing it or punish me for doing it, as long as I'm willing to live with the consequences." And sometimes it means "I shouldn't have to face any adverse consequences from any quarter for doing this". Those aren't the same thing at all, but people will use "rights" to talk about both of them.

Yup.

The First Amendment (for Americans) guarantees that the government won't prevent your speech, but it doesn't prevent anyone else from doing so (like corporations, who have no obligation to host or promote your speech). And it says nothing about how that speech will be received, or how people will react.

A LOT of ignorant people think their "right to free speech" means they should be free to say and do anything without suffering consequences. That's nonsense.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Yup.

The First Amendment (for Americans) guarantees that the government won't prevent your speech, but it doesn't prevent anyone else from doing so (like corporations, who have no obligation to host or promote your speech). And it says nothing about how that speech will be received, or how people will react.

A LOT of ignorant people think their "right to free speech" means they should be free to say and do anything without suffering consequences. That's nonsense.

So, you would agree that Hollywood blacklisting Communists in the 1950s was perfectly acceptable?

 

[FeralSmile]

So, you would agree that Hollywood blacklisting Communists in the 1950s was perfectly acceptable?

Wow, that's a non sequitur. I suggested and believe nothing of the sort.

I mean, people are free to make choices, but my acceptance of their free will doesn't imply I agree with every choice every person ever makes.

And more to your point, the fact that people are free to choose not to host or support speech doesn't mean those choices are right or proper. Just that they're not forbidden by the First Amendment.

We can imagine rather a lot of things that aren't FORBIDDEN by our Constitution but are still unethical or bad choices on a personal or societal level, yes?

 

[nice90sguy]

I really don't think the only reason that people don't generally murder other people is because there's a law or commandment against it.
There are natural social rules that just make sense. One of those rules is that the rules themsleves shoudn't be adhered to too rigidly. Flexibility and tolerance is a rubric of (Western) society.

In Dubai, throwing gum onto the streets is a crime. There's no gum on the streets, but personally I wouldn't want to live there.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Wow, that's a non sequitur. I suggested and believe nothing of the sort.

I mean, people are free to make choices, but my acceptance of their free will doesn't imply I agree with every choice every person ever makes.

I didn't ask if you agreed that they should do it. But based on the position you advocated, that there should be consequences for people's speech, there wasn't anything wrong or inappropriate with blacklisting Communists.

Or as a more direct question, based on your philosophy of freedom of speech, was blacklisting communists acceptable or not?

 

[nice90sguy]

This thread is in danger of becoming political - I think we need to steer this back towards sex, which is more fun -- and considerably sexier.

 

[nice90sguy]

I feel like showing somebody my etchings, but I don't have any. But I have a great collection of 1960's Underground comics if somebody wants to peruse them while I jerk off (at a respectful distance, of course).

 

[FeralSmile]

I didn't ask if you agreed that they should do it. But based on the position you advocated, that there should be consequences for people's speech, there wasn't anything wrong or inappropriate with blacklisting Communists.

Or as a more direct question, based on your philosophy of freedom of speech, was blacklisting communists acceptable or not?

Was it lawful? Yes. Was it awful? Also yes. But then I already answered that question above: "I suggested and believe nothing of the sort." I think perhaps you were reading something into what I said that I didn't put there.

Anyhow, hope you have a wonderful morning.

 

[John_Vandermeer]

One of the difficulties with these "right to do X" conversations is that it's often very unclear what people actually mean by "having a right" to do something.

Sometimes it just means "the government isn't allowed to prevent me from doing it or punish me for doing it, as long as I'm willing to live with the consequences." And sometimes it means "I shouldn't have to face any adverse consequences from any quarter for doing this". Those aren't the same thing at all, but people will use "rights" to talk about both of them.

And sometimes it means "there should be places and times where I'm allowed to do X", and sometimes it means "I should be able to do X anywhere and any time I want, in any way I want". Again, those aren't remotely the same thing, but people often conflate the two.

Sometimes people hear a message like "if you hit on women in this particular forum, folk will think you're a jerk and maybe the site admins will even ban you", but they react as if they'd been told "the government has made it illegal for you to hit on women anywhere, under any circumstances".

Which of those discussions are people actually having here?

Unfortunately it is not a question with clear cut binary answer. As I said, any person has the right to reject a sexual advance. But when a critical mass penalizes the advance the distinction "the government did not ban the advance" becomes moot. In fact, it is worse, since government can (or ought to) be held accountable, mobs can not. We do not want mobs dispensing justice when it comes to theft, murder, etc. I do not believe we want mobs dispensing justice when it comes to unwanted sexual advances, which is basically what many flavors of cancel culture is.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Was it lawful? Yes. Was it awful? Also yes. But then I already answered that question above: "I suggested and believe nothing of the sort." I think perhaps you were reading something into what I said that I didn't put there.

Anyhow, hope you have a wonderful morning.

What was so awful about it?

And a wonderful morning to you as well.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Unfortunately it is not a question with clear cut binary answer. As I said, any person has the right to reject a sexual advance. But when a critical mass penalizes the advance the distinction "the government did not ban the advance" becomes moot. In fact, it is worse, since government can (or ought to) be held accountable, mobs can not. We do not want mobs dispensing justice when it comes to theft, murder, etc. I do not believe we want mobs dispensing justice when it comes to unwanted sexual advances, which is basically what many flavors of cancel culture is.

Wonderful point, it is difficult to slake the mob's thirst for "justice" and it is all too often based on half truths.

The people who hide behind the canard about "free of consequences" always assume they will always be the ones deciding what is acceptable.

 

[SimonDoom]

So, you would agree that Hollywood blacklisting Communists in the 1950s was perfectly acceptable?

I think most people probably don't think that, although it's not a matter of the First Amendment because the First Amendment doesn't limit the ability of private movie studios to blacklist actors for political reasons.

This thread is more about courtesy, i.e., what people SHOULD say, than about rights, i.e., what people CAN say without threat of punishment by the government, or by powerful organizations.