# Is it okay for a woman to hit a man if he harasses her?



## serg79

I thought about this when reading the thread on separate train carriages for women due to sexual harassment from males.

A few of the replies seemed to agree that a good response to this kind of harassment was to physically strike the male harasser.
In my opinion, that would be an act of assault regardless of what had provoked it and regardless of the fact it was a woman hitting a man and not the other way around.

If not, doesn't it seem that the law feels that women *should* be treated as the "weaker sex"?

What if the woman was physically stronger than the man? (not such a rare occurence these days). Would it still be okay for her to punch him in the face if he touched her backside on a crowded bus/train, or should she be prosecuted for such an act, as a man would?

Thanks for your opinions.


----------



## djchak

No. It's not "right".

Would it be right if a woman harassed a man, slapped him on the shoulder, and he grabbed her arm and broke it in response? Or even wrestled her down into a painful armlock?

But it should be punished within the context of immediate reaction/self defense.


----------



## Kajjo

Each reaction has to fulfill the requirement of commensurability. But yes, a physical transgression can be answered physically. A heartful slap to the face might be the right answer to someone _intentionally_ touching your fanny [AE] and setting straight the situation. I would not see any difference between weaker/stronger men or women and either way the reaction should not be a kind of physical _attack_, at least not for the scenario you sketched.

Kajjo


----------



## übermönch

djchak said:


> ...slapped him on the shoulder, and he grabbed her arm and broke it in response? Or even wrestled her down into a painful armlock?


Would it have been any different if you swapped the genders here?


----------



## ireney

Well I have slapped a man (I think I am one of the people who prompted serg's question) for not understanding that he should back off. As I've mentioned in that post, since the society here frowns on such behaviour and I could get him to stop just by making it known that I am harassed, me slapping those guys was just a case of me not being able to control my temper completely.

What I did however was slap him. Not break his arm nor 'it 'im inna fork. He harassed me physically I replied in the same manner. If I was harassing a man for some weird reason he had every right to slap me too obviously. I can't understand how someone can equate a slap with punches or breaking arms.

And touching someone's back (in the area called back) is not considered a harassment nor will any woman consider it so. In an un-crowded place it would be considered getting too familiar. In an overcrowdede place you would hardly notice it.

If we are talking about buttocks region then it's a harasssment. In which case slapping someone is not considered  (at least where I come from) over reacting.

Oh and I don't understand what slapping on the shoulder has to do with what we are talking (that's probably me being dense).


----------



## invictaspirit

Where I come from, if a man is verbally harassing a woman and paying her over-the-top unwanted attention, after a polite warning or two it is considered OK for her to shout at him, humiliate him or draw loud attention to the situation. In such circumstances, others will often intervene to see him off. If however he was to sexually assault her by touching her ass or other parts of her body she felt kind of personal about, it is considered perfectly acceptable for her to hit him and this would be seen morally, and in many cases legally, as self defence.


----------



## maxiogee

The person who, _for whatever reason_, strikes the first blow, invites retaliation in kind.
For myself, I believe all violence to be wrong, unproductive and futile - having been on the receiving end of more than enough in my life.


----------



## serg79

Hi, "backside" = arse/ass (I tried to avoid using that word).



ireney said:


> What I did however was slap him. Not break his arm nor 'it 'im inna fork. He harassed me physically I replied in the same manner. If I was harassing a man for some weird reason he had every right to slap me too obviously. I can't understand how someone can equate a slap with punches or breaking arms.


I'd say it depends on the force of the slap. I've seen people literally knocked out having been slapped (rather than punched) full-on in the face.

However, if a man slapped a woman in the face I'm *certain* it would be met with a different reaction than if it were the other way round, by both the woman who was slapped and anyone who happened to witness the incident.



			
				invictaspirit said:
			
		

> Where I come from, if a man is verbally harassing a woman and paying her over-the-top unwanted attention, after a polite warning or two it is considered OK for her to shout at him, humiliate him or draw loud attention to the situation. In such circumstances, others will often intervene to see him off. If however he was to sexually assault her by touching her ass or other parts of her body she felt kind of personal about, it is considered perfectly acceptable for her to hit him and this would be seen morally, and in many cases legally, self defence.


What about if the guy who carried out the sexual assault was of very slight/small physical build and the woman (who then carried out the physical assault) was built like a heavyweight boxer. Would her reaction still be seen as "self-defence" in legal terms?

Again, if it were the other way round, I doubt that *any* man would be excused of his reaction if he slapped a woman hard in the face. That is what seems inconsistent/biased to me, because I can understand how the law should protect people who are physically weaker than others, but if one group is considered by default to be weaker, when in many cases it is obviously not so, that seems discriminatory to me (to both parties).


----------



## djchak

übermönch said:


> Would it have been any different if you swapped the genders here?



No.


----------



## ireney

a) When a man, however small harasses a woman she has every right to react by slapping him. Just because he's small he can touch buttocks to his heart's content without fearing that one might slap him?

b) Women don't harass men all that often, at least by touching them so as to make slapping them  "justified". If they do and the man slaps them back I don't see why the people will not show understanding. 

You begin by a pre-supposition (that it's a case of weak sex and that people will react differently if a man reacts physically in a physicall harassment) and you just won't believe anyone if he/she says otherwise.

I repeat myself: Slapping someone is not the best reaction you can have, at least where the society is going to take steps and there ARE people around to take steps (if people around you will just look the other way my idea is slap away). The same goes for a woman harassing a man. The amount of ridicule she's going to attract will be massive. It is however socially acceptable and, to my mind, logical to react physically in propotion to the offence whether you are a man or a woman.


----------



## LouisaB

I am totally with ireney here.



maxiogee said:


> The person who, _for whatever reason_, strikes the first blow, invites retaliation in kind.
> For myself, I believe all violence to be wrong, unproductive and futile - having been on the receiving end of more than enough in my life.


 
I agree with maxiogee - and would stress that in ireney's case it was the _man_ who 'struck the first blow' by assaulting her in the first place. The man committed a criminal act - and deserved exactly what he got. Yes, a verbal warning in the first instance is always desirable, but if a man fails to respond to that, then in my opinion the woman is entitled to protect herself in any way she can. And yes, if a woman assaults a man, then she too lays herself open to that kind of retaliation, and rightly so. The relative strength of the adversaries is irrelevant - except that if a five-foot weedy male is stupid enough to assault a woman built like a boxer, then he probably needs therapy as well as a good slap.

The difficulty with the issue is that *it's hard to imagine the roles reversed*, and that's the real reason the 'public reaction' would be different if a man struck a woman under such circumstances. The public perception (NOT, I hasten to add, mine) is that men 'don't mind' sexual harrassment of this kind, and would actually welcome a female giving them a free grope on the train. If they do in fact 'mind', most people would believe the man would be strong enough to compel her to desist, eg by taking her hand and forcing it away - there should be, in fact, no need to slap the woman at all. 

In fact, society is changing at last, and it's finally been recognised that men can be harrassed in this way too (especially at work) but the stereotype remains. A man who slapped a woman for this kind of thing might be regarded as someone with 'a problem'.... 

If I'm honest, I'd probably think so myself. It's very hard to imagine a man being unable physically to prevent such a thing (although I have to concede it's perfectly possible). When it's happened to me, I've done my best to give verbal warnings (hard in a crowd when you don't know who it is), and I've tried physically to force the hand away without success. What I do now is follow the hand to the arm to the body to the leg, and dig a stiletto as firmly as I can into the foot - and wait to see who screams. 

But perhaps that's too aggressive of me?


----------



## serg79

_a) When a man, however small harasses a woman she has every right to react by slapping him._ 

The non-sexist version would be: "When a *person*, however small, harasses another *person*, *he/she* has every right to react by slapping *him/her*". I don't know if you'd still agree to that.
Personally speaking, I certainly don't agree with either version.

_Just because he's small he can touch buttocks to his heart's content without fearing that one might slap him?_

No, obviously not. My example of the small/slightly built male was to exemplify the fact that not all men are physically stronger than women, so why would it be okay for *any* woman to slap *any* man in reaction to being sexually harassed, but not vice versa?

_b) Women don't harass men all that often, at least by touching them so as to make slapping them "justified". If they do and the man slaps them back I don't see why the people will not show understanding._ 

However, in the real world the reaction would most probably be totally different; both at the scene of the event and in any subsequent intervention from the law (which would be a highly unlikely outcome in the case of a woman hitting a man).

In the society I live in, a man hitting a woman is simply viewed completely differently to a woman hitting a man, regardless of the situation, regardless of whether the female is physically stronger than the male... That's just how it is and that's exactly what I was questioning (beginning with the supposition that males and females should be treated equally, rather than the "pre-supposition" you've accused me of).


----------



## Cath.S.

I've never had to strike a man in that sort of situation, harsh talk has always proven sufficient, but I suppose that if the guy had paid no heed I would have had to do something physical to him. 

It's always difficult to assess what to do in order to avoid overreacting, as well as underreacting. Especially when the case is hypothetical, like discussing it on a forum. In real life, it's easier to see what seems adequate in a given situation. It's not as simple as the guy being stronger or weaker than the woman. As I said in the other thread, we should be able to communicate - and communication sometimes includes violence, a person has the right and even the duty to defend themselves imo.

But I would like to stress that there is no point in turning into a tragedy something that would be best forgotten fast, because all it is about, after all, is some insecure idiot trying to prove something to himself.


----------



## Etcetera

I wholeheartedly agree with Ireney. 
I believe that women have the right to defend themselves.


----------



## Sallyb36

I agree with Maxiogee again, that violence is never a good idea. I can only condone it as a form of self-defence, and even then only if there is no other option.


----------



## Mei

Hi all there,

It is ok that men do it? If men didn't do it there wouldn't be any doubt about it. Why do we have to wait for a woman's reaction? Why don't men just stop doing it? It is just as easy as that.

I think the same in the other way around, when a women hits a man. It's not ok.

Cheers

Mei

Thanks for your corrections Natasha,


----------



## Nunty

I think that everyone would agree that a woman has the right to physically defend herself -- scratch, bite, punch, kick strategically -- against rape. I think that everyone would agree that a woman does not have the right to hit a man who smiles at her lewdly from across the room. The question is where to draw the line.

The answer is harder to state than the question. I agree with those (mostly women?) who say that it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. For instance, if a man takes advantage of a crowded bus or train car to grope under cover of the general crush, is a woman justified in giving him a sharp elbow in the gut, also under cover of the general crush?

I recently read a semi-autobiographical novel that is set in Baghdad, beginning in the 1920s. According to it, some men would put on Islamic women's dress to get close enough to grope actual women in crowded public places. The only defense for a woman was to attach herself to another, or preferably two or three other women when going to such places. I don't know if it's true, but I don't see why it shouldn't be.

When I was a young woman and a non-nun  I had the experience of being groped on a crowded bus. I called the man a name in a very loud voice and ordered to him, loudly and in specific terms, to remove his hand from where he had placed it. In that particular case, the whole busload of passengers joined me in yelling at the guy and the driver offered to go straight to the police. Hitting him would actually have been the less effective option in that case.

But we are in different times and different social contexts now. Violence is usually wrong, but sometimes violence is necessary to defend oneself from violence. So my answer to the question is: Yes, sometimes, if the harassment is physical and crosses the line I don't know how to define on the spectrum that starts with unwelcome and undesired flirting, continues on through "taking liberties" to groping to non-rape sexual assault to rape.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

LouisaB said:


> The difficulty with the issue is that *it's hard to imagine the roles reversed*, and that's the real reason the 'public reaction' would be different if a man struck a woman under such circumstances.



Well, I'm going to help you imagine the roles reversed, because it happened to me: I was having fun with my mates in a club when a girl (maybe a bit tipsy) came up to me unkindly asking me to get her a drink.
When I questioned her whether we had met before, she took to groping my package regardless of all the people around us, whispering something like "you like it big boy, don't ya?"
I didn't slap her or hit her of course, but I just told her to bugger off.. and what did madam decide to do? she began screaming out loud  pretending  I was the one who was trying to harass her!!
Needless to say that everybody, apart from my friends, stood by the poor and helpless lady (a stocky gal who could hardly be knocked down by a common man, but by a prop of a rugby team), simply because she was a girl and I was a man, therefore I had to be the molester...


> The public perception (NOT, I hasten to add, mine) is that *men 'don't mind'* sexual harrassment of this kind, and would actually welcome a female giving them a free grope on the train.


My *rse!! I did mind! 
The point is that there's a strong prejudice against men who, in any situation, are supposed to be the harassers and never the victims.
What was I meant to do then? slap her? punch her? 
Unfortunately, when it seldom occurs that a man is harassed by a woman, he is in a no-win situation: he can't react because he's a male, he can't report the woman to the police as they would hardly believe his words and he has to consider himself lucky if the gal's mates won't start beating him up!


----------



## ireney

Well if a man says here that a woman has grabbed his package and that's why he slapped her no one would condemn him. 

I agree that the preconception of the society when seeing a man slapping a woman would be that it's about a totally diferent matter and that he shouldn't hit her and therefore an explanation is needed but that's because in general men do hit women for different reasons.

I was told by a member of an infuritating story about a woman who "didn't want to hurt him". I'm sorry but after a point you must hurt him as much as is needed to get out of the situation and not a bit more. Same goes for the other way around. Resorting to violence must always be the last thing one opts for but sitting there and taking it just because of "what would happen if the roles were reversed" is to me unthinkable.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Paulfromitaly said:


> I *didn't* slap her or hit her of course





ireney said:


> Well if a man says here that a woman has grabbed his package and that's why he slapped her no one would condemn him.



I didn't do it and I'm afraid that almost every woman in that club would have blamed me if I had slapped her.


----------



## ireney

Paul I didn't mean that you slapped her, I meant that you had every right to do so. And you are making me more and more reluctant to leave Greece!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ireney said:


> Paul I didn't mean that you slapped her, I meant that you had every right to do so. And you are making me more and more reluctant to leave Greece!



Things might be different from country to country: that happened to me in Italy, but the lovely lady was English.


----------



## maxiogee

So, parent X is out with their child.
Mr, or Ms Y comes up and says or does something which deeply offends Y.
Y hits X.
X apologises and departs.

A month later little X is sent home from school for smacking another child in the schoolyard.
In the role of X, explain to little X why they shouldn't have hit their schoolmate.


----------



## Etcetera

On the other hand: and what should a woman do if a man harasses her? Should she answer nothing and let him do whatever he wants?

By the way, children very seldom hit each other without any reason.


----------



## ireney

maxiogee said:


> So, parent X is out with their child.
> Mr, or Ms Y comes up and says or does something which deeply offends Y.
> Y hits X.
> X apologises and departs.
> 
> A month later little X is sent home from school for smacking another child in the schoolyard.
> In the role of X, explain to little X why they shouldn't have hit their schoolmate.



The scenario goes like that

Y is being offensive. X tries to avoid Y. Y persists. X tries to reason with Y. Y doesn't get it. X tries in every possible, verbal way to get rid of Y. Y gets physical. Y grabs X private parts for istance. X smacks Y. Y doesn't really apologises (I still have to meet a harasser who apologised) or maybe Y does.

X explains to little X how violence is the last resort and how little X should avoid using violence but not at all costs; Not if you are cornered for instance.

Little X smacks a kid. What was the reason? Out of the blue? Then it had nothing with X smacking that between-the-southern-cheeks-hole. There was a reason? What was it?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Etcetera said:


> By the way, children very seldom hit each other without any reason.



I don't agree at all: a violent man is often a father of a bully son who thinks he can get anything he wants by bossing around and threatening other kids.


----------



## serg79

Etcetera said:


> On the other hand: and what should a woman do if a man harasses her? Should she answer nothing and let him do whatever he wants?


If we're talking about being groped on a train or in any public place, how about just shouting at the offender something like: "You dirty f*cking pervert! Keep your hands to yourself!"

Hitting someone because they touched you inappropriately doesn't seem like a "last resort" action to me, more like a violent reaction... a socially (and maybe legally) acceptable one if you're a woman, but not if you're a man... which was my original point.

Obviously I agree that there are many more men who are sexual harassers than women, and that is the main problem, but as PaulfromItaly has mentioned (and as I mentioned in the other thread which caused to me start this one) it does happen the other way round too, and when it does, as a man you just have to accept that your body is seen as less important than a woman's.


----------



## emma42

There is a qualitative difference between a woman sexually assaulting a man and vice versa (because of the underlying knowledge that, in the final analysis, most men will be able to rape most women,  but not the other way around), but this  absolutely does not excuse the sexual assault of a man by a woman.  I disagree with serg79 when he says, "...as a man you just have to accept that your body is seen as less important than a woman's".  I think I know what you mean, serg, but men should not accept this - they should fight against such attitudes, just as women have been fighting for millennia.

To accept such attitudes is to perpetuate the idea (now, thankfully, changing slowly, at least in England) that male victims of female domestic violence are not really victims.  I am not ascribing this attitude to you, serg, but perhaps you can see the dangers in accepting such ideas, and the benefits to society as a whole of trying to change them.

As to whether anyone should hit anyone else who has attacked them, yes, I think they probably do have the right to do that, but, as has been said, each case should be judged on its merits.  In English law, the doctrine of self-defence also includes an element of the "pre-emptive strike", but cannot include retaliation.  I really do not like violence, but if  I saw a woman hit a man who had assaulted her, I would support her.  The problem with a man doing the same to a woman is, as has been pointed out, that people will probably assume that the man is assaulting the woman for some other reason, and he may well suffer the consequences from onlookers.  This, of course, is not fair.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

serg79 said:


> as a man you just have to accept that your body is seen as less important than a woman's.



That's really unfair, isn't it?
If we, as men, refuse to take advantage of our physical strength (as I would always do) we then end up  being absolutely helpless because, as I said before, a man is hardly ever seen as a victim of sexual harassment, but usually only as a molester.  
I'm not a slender guy and I'm quite tall, so I wasn't scared at all when that lovely lady tried to check my stuff: what really upset me was that I could see in her eyes the fair certainty that nobody would have believed me if I had tried to accuse her to be the one who had harassed me.


----------



## ireney

Well life is hardly fair isn't it? Why is it that I cannot wear my nice low cut blouses and enter the subway eh? I mean not only men are going to hit on me, I'll get the "you slut" look from any amount of passengers. And I just like my low-cut blouses.

I have a nice bosom and accenuating it compliments me and that makes me feel good (what can I say? I like the feeling of being nicely dressed in a way that suits me and my figure). But I can't do that can I? No, I have to wear blouses that keep it well covered and are on the large side to actually hide it if I want people to notice that hey! I have a neck and a head! I can hardly do it in pubs too unless I am positively surrounded by friends or practically attached to my boyfriend because there's no way I am wearing a low-cut because I like it. Nope, I just want to attract attention and a lot of it by drunk men! 

Not fair is it?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ireney said:


> Well life is hardly fair isn't it? Why is it that I cannot wear my nice low cut blouses and enter the subway eh? I mean not only men are going to hit on me, I'll get the "you slut" look from any amount of passengers. And I just like my low-cut blouses.
> 
> I have a nice bosom and accenuating it compliments me and that makes me feel good (what can I say? I like the feeling of being nicely dressed in a way that suits me and my figure). But I can't do that can I? No, I have to wear blouses that keep it well covered and are on the large side to actually hide it if I want people to notice that hey! I have a neck and a head! I can hardly do it in pubs too unless I am positively surrounded by friends or practically attached to my boyfriend because there's no way I am wearing a low-cut because I like it. Nope, I just want to attract attention and a lot of it by drunk men!
> 
> Not fair is it?



That's a completely different kettle of fish: it's up to you whether tarting yourself up or not, it's your own decision, but sexual harassment has nothing to do with that.


----------



## AngelEyes

Ireney,

I've always been interested in female attitudes such as yours. It intrigues me because it sends out confusing messages about your intent. You seem to not understand the reactions that you get, by both males and females, as a result. I'm surprised you're surprised.

If you have beautiful breasts and you show them off by wearing revealing clothing, why does it surprise you (or maybe disgusts you is a better term) when a healthy male looks at them and appreciates them? Why would ANY guy notice your pretty blue eyes or your curly blond hair if he has a choice of two plumped-up, in-your-face breasts staring at him? I'd be shocked if he _didn't_ choose to look at them, and only them. That's the nature of the human male. 

You can't _put them out there_ on display and then show indignation when the obvious is going to happen. That's why you get looks from other women. We all know how to entice and what features to flaunt to do the enticing. Whether we choose to do it in a public way is a matter of personal decision. When I see a woman who's boobs are _right out there,_ I know she knows what she's doing. 

Now, why you're doing it is probably where we might differ in opinion. I might suggest you're doing it so that guys *will* look at them. You might reply that you're only doing it to promote your own self-esteem, and that it's nobody's business but your own if you choose to do that. Well, you are correct. It's a free world and it's your body, but I think it's naive to expect a guy not to look. You can and should expect him to control how far he goes in his appreciation, but I really don't understand why you'd not be happy when that's all he looks at. What other reason are you dressed like that? If there were no men at all in this world - only women - would you still wear low-cut, revealing clothing all the time? 

It's just interesting to me, that's all - attitudes such as what you expressed in your post. I guess I just wanted to add my comments to them, even though I fully support your right to do whatever you want. 

AngelEyes


----------



## LouisaB

Paulfromitaly said:


> That's a completely different kettle of fish: it's up to you whether tarting yourself up or not, it's your own decision, but sexual harassment has nothing to do with that.


 
Ah. 

I was halfway through composing a sympathetic post expressing my belief that it is wrong for anyone to be made to feel a victim, but I just changed my mind...

_'Tarting yourself up'??????_

Obviously, Paul was wearing baggy (and preferably filthy) clothing, and had his wife on one arm, and his mother on the other. Equally obviously he was drinking soft drinks, speaking quietly, never raising his eyes from the lady to whom he was speaking, and sitting with his legs pressed close together. You know, the way women have to be even to this day if they don't want someone calling them a tart...

Because if he wasn't, and thinks it is acceptable for a woman to be subjected to harassment for behaving in a manner he believes to be acceptable for himself, then I cannot answer him appropriately on this forum. I would never defend the behaviour of the woman who abused him in the way described - she makes me ashamed for women, and even more so for Englishwomen. I would have hoped enlightened men today would have felt the same for the behaviour of their primitive counterparts over the last 2000 years, as opposed to the last ten, but it seems I am to be disappointed.

Please tell me not all men really think like this!


----------



## emma42

I am dying to talk about this clothing issue and the use of the phrase "tarting yourself up", but it's off-topic.  Perhaps a kind Mod will move the appropriate posts to a new thread, maybe entitled:

"Provocative female clothing"?


----------



## zebedee

emma42 said:


> I am dying to talk about this clothing issue and the use of the phrase "tarting yourself up", but it's off-topic.  Perhaps a kind Mod will move the appropriate posts to a new thread, maybe entitled:
> 
> "Provocative female clothing"?



Please feel free to open the thread and I'll get passing the relevant posts on!


----------



## emma42

Thanks, Zebedee.  I have opened a new thread.


----------



## invictaspirit

AngelEyes said:


> Ireney,
> 
> I've always been interested in female attitudes such as yours. It intrigues me because it sends out confusing messages about your intent. You seem to not understand the reactions that you get, by both males and females, as a result. I'm surprised you're surprised.
> 
> If you have beautiful breasts and you show them off by wearing revealing clothing, why does it surprise you (or maybe disgusts you is a better term) when a healthy male looks at them and appreciates them? Why would ANY guy notice your pretty blue eyes or your curly blond hair if he has a choice of two plumped-up, in-your-face breasts staring at him? I'd be shocked if he _didn't_ choose to look at them, and only them. That's the nature of the human male.
> 
> You can't _put them out there_ on display and then show indignation when the obvious is going to happen. That's why you get looks from other women. We all know how to entice and what features to flaunt to do the enticing. Whether we choose to do it in a public way is a matter of personal decision. When I see a woman who's boobs are _right out there,_ I know she knows what she's doing.
> 
> Now, why you're doing it is probably where we might differ in opinion. I might suggest you're doing it so that guys *will* look at them. You might reply that you're only doing it to promote your own self-esteem, and that it's nobody's business but your own if you choose to do that. Well, you are correct. It's a free world and it's your body, but I think it's naive to expect a guy not to look. You can and should expect him to control how far he goes in his appreciation, but I really don't understand why you'd not be happy when that's all he looks at. What other reason are you dressed like that? If there were no men at all in this world - only women - would you still wear low-cut, revealing clothing all the time?
> 
> It's just interesting to me, that's all - attitudes such as what you expressed in your post. I guess I just wanted to add my comments to them, even though I fully support your right to do whatever you want.
> 
> AngelEyes


 
I don't know about you, but I am capable of admiring an impressive pair of breasts in a very gently flirtatious way, should that seem appropriate in certain situations, and in a totally non-discernable way in other situations, without recourse to sexual molestation or bone-headed and irritating verbal pursuit of the woman concerned. I am led to believe that a lot of other men have this facility.

What can I say? I enjoy seeing them. I have sometimes intimated that I enjoy seeing them. I don't believe I have ever once embarrassed myself or a woman by letting my appreciation of the breasts flip my behaviour into caveman mode.

Do some guys think they will score if they wet themselves over this sort of thing?


----------



## Luke Warm

maxiogee said:


> The person who, _for whatever reason_, strikes the first blow, invites retaliation in kind.
> For myself, I believe all violence to be wrong, unproductive and futile - having been on the receiving end of more than enough in my life.


 
I agree, as a general rule violence should always be the very last resort.  One also has to consider the impact of a slap.  Not that I have or would ever treat a woman like I know some men do, but I would find being embarrassed in front of a crowd as a chauvenist pig far more painful than a slap.  In a crowded place, a woman should react to such groping by letting everybody else around aware of what the man has done.  In fact, some men, especially those desperate, sick, or pathetic enough to resort to such behavior, might even enjoy the slap-- what they want is physical contact and attention from the woman, and a slap gives them exactly that.  Responding to a physical assault with another physical assault just condones physical assaults in general.  If it truly is a matter of self-defense, then naturally one should defend one’s self, but aside from that, the civilized thing to do would be to rise above the action of the perpetrator and act in a way that just makes the guy feel like the obsolete Neanderthal he is.


----------



## Papalote

serg79 said:


> If we're talking about being groped on a train or in any public place, how about just shouting at the offender something like: "You dirty f*cking pervert! Keep your hands to yourself!"
> 
> *Hitting someone because they touched you inappropriately doesn't seem like a "last resort" action to me, more like a violent reaction... *a socially (and maybe legally) acceptable one if you're a woman, but not if you're a man... which was my original point.
> 
> Obviously I agree that there are many more men who are sexual harassers than women, and that is the main problem, but as PaulfromItaly has mentioned (and as I mentioned in the other thread which caused to me start this one) it does happen the other way round too, and when it does, as a man you just have to accept that your body is seen as less important than a woman's.


 
Hello everyone,

I haven´t finished reading all of the posts, and I intend too, but I just had to make a comment to Serg79 to his text in bold.

What makes you decide that groping is not a physical assault. Just because it didn`t hurt as much as a slap? Do you only count agression as physical and only if it hurts or leaves a mark? Because if this is so, then a woman hitting a man should be considered as a kind of `groping`, no? It leaves less of a mark and hurts less than if a man of equal proportions had been the attacker.

And you forget a very important aspect which, if you have never been groped, you cannot be aware of; the emotional and psychological after-effects of being physically attacked or verbally abused and humilated. Sometimes, the victim considers verbal attacks too demeaning so she (I) feels slapping is more effective, mainly because it is more visible, is a less demeaning response for her.

I have been groped a few times in the metro, and my response has always been to grab the hand, although many times it is only the tip of a finger since the perpetrator is in the act of removing his hand from my backside, and twisting as hard as I can. One time that I managed to grab the hand and raised it asking in a loud voice : `Which of you guys has lost a hand? This one is anxiously looking around women`s bottoms for its cowardly owner!`  Some people around me chuckled but most, specially the women, averted their eyes and tried to get away from me. Talk about blaming the victim!

So, groping is a physical attack. Why call it anything else?

Sincerely,

Papalote


----------



## emma42

Extremely well put, Papalote.  Groping is an assault, just as is a slap.


----------



## Cath.S.

Luke Warm said:
			
		

> I would find being embarrassed in front of a crowd as a chauvenist pig far more painful than a slap.


Then it is obviously kinder, more merciful, to slap men who feel the same way as you do, isn't it?


----------



## serg79_

Papalote said:


> What makes you decide that groping is not a physical assault. Just because it didn`t hurt as much as a slap? Do you only count agression as physical and only if it hurts or leaves a mark? Because if this is so, then a woman hitting a man should be considered as a kind of `groping`, no? It leaves less of a mark and hurts less than if a man of equal proportions had been the attacker.


Firstly, I didn't say that a grope wasn't a physical assault, but let's get things into perspective a little: Which is worse: a baseball bat in the face or a slap on the back of the knees? If we're talking about a "physical" assault, then obviously the force used matters, yes.



Papalote said:


> And you forget a very important aspect which, if you have never been groped, you cannot be aware of; the emotional and psychological after-effects of being physically attacked or verbally abused and humilated. Sometimes, the victim considers verbal attacks too demeaning so she (I) feels slapping is more effective, mainly because it is more visible, is a less demeaning response for her.


Again, some perspective here: As I mentioned in a previous thread (about separate rail carriages for women) I have been groped on a train, more than once, and on one occasion by a group of drunken women, which I found totally humiliating, but being a man I felt there was nothing I could do except just try to move away from them. If I had struck out physically (which wouldn't even have ocurred to me, btw) I could imagine what might have happened: police waiting for me when I got off the train.
But let's not overreact, I didn't need counselling because of what happened. Although I did when I got the crap beaten out of me outside a nightclub by a group of thugs who broke my collar bone and knocked some of my teeth out, just for fun. 



Papalote said:


> I have been groped a few times in the metro, and my response has always been to grab the hand, although many times it is only the tip of a finger since the perpetrator is in the act of removing his hand from my backside, and twisting as hard as I can. One time that I managed to grab the hand and raised it asking in a loud voice : `Which of you guys has lost a hand? This one is anxiously looking around women`s bottoms for its cowardly owner!` Some people around me chuckled but most, specially the women, averted their eyes and tried to get away from me. Talk about blaming the victim!


I wouldn't call that blaming the victim (and if you were male, probably even more eyes would have been averted), rather I would call it the "I don't want to get involved" attitude that most people have these days; especially prevalent on public transport during commuting hours...


PS: I forgot my #%#% password so I've started again as Serg79_ (underscore).


----------



## Paulfromitaly

AngelEyes said:


> You can't _put them out there_ on display and then show indignation when the obvious is going to happen.



Better...you can put them on display, but then you must be ready to face men's reactions: far from saying that looking attractive is a fault, but it can put yourself in an awkward situation; we know by far that there are perverts out there and we know that they can get even more troublesome once they are drunk.
Unfortunatly you can't claim to choose which men are allowed to peek at your cleavege and which are not.
I am *not* saying that once you've decided to put your assets on display, men are allowed to pester you, I'm just pointing out that it happens.



LouisaB said:


> Ah.
> 
> I was halfway through composing a sympathetic post expressing my belief that it is wrong for anyone to be made to feel a victim, but I just changed my mind...
> 
> _'Tarting yourself up'??????_
> 
> Obviously, Paul was wearing baggy (and preferably filthy) clothing, and had his wife on one arm, and his mother on the other. Equally obviously he was drinking soft drinks, speaking quietly, never raising his eyes from the lady to whom he was speaking, and sitting with his legs pressed close together. You know, the way women have to be even to this day if they don't want someone calling them a tart...



I'm sorry if I didn't express my point clearly enough: Paul was just trying to say that what a woman or a man decides to wear when they are out clubbing or having fun must have nothing to do with sexual harassment:
you could also pop over at the pub wearing just a bikini, it doesn't mean that any of the men drooling after you would be allowed to harrass you.
You know that some women love tarting themselves up: it's just a question of decency and personal taste.
No personal behaviour or clothing choice can justify sexual harassment.


----------



## emma42

Paul, I agree with your last paragraph, but I don't know why you insist on using the phrase "tarting...up".  It's tantamount to saying that when women dress in a certain way, they wish to look like prostitutes, who are sexually available for money.


----------



## Luke Warm

egueule said:


> Then it is obviously kinder, more merciful, to slap men who feel the same way as you do, isn't it?


 
As opposed to being embarassed in front of a crowd?  I've suffered my share of embarrassments, so, well, yeah, a slap would probably be more merciful.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

emma42 said:


> Paul, I agree with your last paragraph, but I don't know why you insist on using the phrase "tarting...up".  It's tantamount to saying that when women dress in a certain way, they wish to look like prostitutes, who are sexually available for money.



Ok, my bad..
change tarting up with dressing up in a too revealing way.


----------



## emma42

Thanks Paul.  Let's change it to "dressing up in a revealing way" and leave out the "too"?


----------



## ireney

AngelEyes said:


> Ireney,
> 
> I've always been interested in female attitudes such as yours. It intrigues me because it sends out confusing messages about your intent. You seem to not understand the reactions that you get, by both males and females, as a result. I'm surprised you're surprised.
> 
> If you have beautiful breasts and you show them off by wearing revealing clothing, why does it surprise you (or maybe disgusts you is a better term) when a healthy male looks at them and appreciates them? Why would ANY guy notice your pretty blue eyes or your curly blond hair if he has a choice of two plumped-up, in-your-face breasts staring at him? I'd be shocked if he _didn't_ choose to look at them, and only them. That's the nature of the human male.
> 
> You can't _put them out there_ on display and then show indignation when the obvious is going to happen. That's why you get looks from other women. We all know how to entice and what features to flaunt to do the enticing. Whether we choose to do it in a public way is a matter of personal decision. When I see a woman who's boobs are _right out there,_ I know she knows what she's doing.
> 
> Now, why you're doing it is probably where we might differ in opinion. I might suggest you're doing it so that guys *will* look at them. You might reply that you're only doing it to promote your own self-esteem, and that it's nobody's business but your own if you choose to do that. Well, you are correct. It's a free world and it's your body, but I think it's naive to expect a guy not to look. You can and should expect him to control how far he goes in his appreciation, but I really don't understand why you'd not be happy when that's all he looks at. What other reason are you dressed like that? If there were no men at all in this world - only women - would you still wear low-cut, revealing clothing all the time?
> 
> It's just interesting to me, that's all - attitudes such as what you expressed in your post. I guess I just wanted to add my comments to them, even though I fully support your right to do whatever you want.
> 
> AngelEyes



Did I say that I mind if someone looks at "them"? Of course I don't mind. I don't mind when they look at my hair either nor my calves so no, no problem if they admire them. I like to look pretty because that makes me feel nice but I would be pretty weird if I didn't want people to look at me and like what they see (the whole package mind you, breasts included; I don't want to have to hide the bloody things)

However, after I make clear that we are not talking about low-cut as in "don't breath in or you may show too much" that's quite different from them looking exclusively at them or thinking that, as you put it I am" doing it so that guys *will* look at them". And when did I say anything about "tarting up"? I must have missed that part. I must also have missed the part where I said that I am surprised. Didn't I say that I am NOT wearing them? I've learnt my lesson quite early thank you. 

Now isn't it unfair that I got to be essentially called a girl who likes to tart up just because I like low-cuts?

P.S. I didn't see any thread on dress so I posted here.
P.P.S. Now if the reaction of Paul is not a pre-conception of the society I don't know what is. And it's exactly men like that that have me "hiding" myself.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ireney said:


> P.P.S. Now if the reaction of Paul is not a pre-conception of the society I don't know what is. *And it's exactly men like that that have me "hiding" myself.*



If every man were a gentleman like Paul, the problem of "sexual harassment" wouldn't even exist.


----------



## AngelEyes

If there were no men in this world, women wouldn't wear make-up, they wouldn't color their hair, they wouldn't get breast implants or lip injections or face lifts. 

If this were a man-less planet, women wouldn't spend a fraction of the amount of time they do now on their appearance and they wouldn't care at all if they looked sexy or not.

If women aren't dressing to please men, they'd go to bars in sweatshirts and baggy jeans, because those are comfortable to wear. They wouldn't stuff themselves into tight clothing and starve themselves to look like the perfect model of what society tells them they should.

And the thong would be burned and never be heard from again.

It's just not true that we dress for ourselves and not for other people. Everything we do cries out for attention and acceptance from one another.

And what's wrong with that? Love makes the world go round. 

AngelEyes

P.S.
Paul: You seem just fine to me.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

AngelEyes said:


> If there were no men in this world, women wouldn't wear make-up, they wouldn't color their hair, they wouldn't get breast implants or lip injections or face lifts.
> 
> If this were a man-less planet, women wouldn't spend a fraction of the amount of time they do now on their appearance and they wouldn't care at all if they looked sexy or not.
> 
> If women aren't dressing to please men, they'd go to bars in sweatshirts and baggy jeans, because those are comfortable to wear. They wouldn't stuff themselves into tight clothing and starve themselves to look like the perfect model of what society tells them they should.
> 
> And the thong would be burned and never be heard from again.
> 
> It's just not true that we dress for ourselves and not for other people. Everything we do cries out for attention and acceptance from one another.
> 
> And what's wrong with that? Love makes the world go round.
> 
> AngelEyes
> 
> P.S.
> Paul: You seem just fine to me.



I do agree with you:  if you take a look at the "provocative female clothing" thread you'll see that, more or less, we share the same opinion.


----------



## Iona

Hello . I think that women grabbing men in cases such as  PaulfromItaly's  are relatively rare; especially from women who are sober .Of course her accusations were unforgivable.
Women are often victims of being manhandled (literally)and they are more vulnerable in a wider range of situations e.g just going for a walk in the park . He was  annoyed ,that's how women feel . He verbally gave her what for ;that's what women want  to do to men. He wanted to lash out and defend himself ;that's what women want to do. It's happened to him just once and I'm  sorry for that  BUT at least it's given you some insight as to how women feel . I do not believe in violence BUT  gut reaction , fear and indignation can get there first.


----------



## ireney

I'm sorry but the "I think you are doing it to provoke men" , having your bosoms appear is "too revealing"  is what bothers me (the rest in the appropriate thread). PaulfromItaly says that's ςηατ he thinks is the reason for wearing a specific garment, therefore, it's men like Paul that make me not wear them and try to hide them. Anyway, I find it unfair. You guys find something something else unfair. That was the purpose of this example; Life is unfair.


----------



## Luke Warm

ireney said:


> it's men like Paul that make me not wear them and try to hide them. Anyway, I find it unfair. You guys find something something else unfair. That was the purpose of this example; Life is unfair.


 
Thanks a lot , Paul!  Unfortunately men are to varying degrees controlled by primal urges (as are women, though women are far less likely to go out and grope, rape, or talk at a man's crotch).  As much as I, a man who can keep my willy in check, enjoy seeing a beautiful woman accenting her attributes with well selected attire, knowing that many men are less able to do so, I can perfectly understand that a woman must be cautious.  In that way, life is unfair, but the reality is that women need to be aware of the reactions her looks and/or outfit might be inspiring.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ireney said:


> it's men like Paul that make me not wear them and try to hide them.



Let Paul the "mugger" repeat *once again* the same point:
If every man on the Earth were like him, you could also hang around bare naked and nobody would grope your breasts or try to sexually harass you.
I have *never *said that if a busty woman as you said you are wears a revealing top, she does it in order to tease men, but it happens that some men get worked up by watching a nice pair.
You and every other woman must have the right to wear whatever attire they want, but please don't pretend to be puzzled when you realise that men stare at you, because you know that's the way it goes.
You can't claim that only your boyfriend look at you if you're in public because staring is not illegal yet; you can't select in advance which men can look at you and which men can not.
Is it right that men always look at your chest? I don't know.
Does it bother you? I'm sorry, but it's not Paul's fault.


----------



## heidita

Kajjo said:


> Each reaction has to fulfill the requirement of commensurability. But yes, a physical transgression can be answered physically. A heartful slap to the face might be the right answer


 
I cannot but heartfully agree with my German friend. 
In another thread I told the story of myself being harassed by a man masturbating in front of all women present. All of them looked the other way, I hit back, as I thought it was_ like hitting me in the face_, so that's exactly what I did.
I don't understand the question. Why shouldn't a woman hit back? Should one stand back and enjoy, as many men put it? 
As one can see I get rather worked up. But for me it is hard to understand that a woman actually doesn't hit back, file a complaint, press charges. (In the case where I _hit back_, I also pressed charges).


----------



## heidita

djchak said:


> No. It's not "right".
> 
> Would it be right if a woman harassed a man, slapped him on the shoulder, and he grabbed her arm and broke it in response? Or even wrestled her down into a painful armlock?
> 
> But it should be punished within the context of immediate reaction/self defense.


 
So are you  saying that slapping somebody in the face is like breaking his arm???


----------



## heidita

ireney said:


> a) When a man, however small harasses a woman she has every right to react by slapping him. Just because he's small he can touch buttocks to his heart's content without fearing that one might slap him?


I think men count on that. Women in this country at least normally "look the other way", as they feel embarrassed and think, quite truthfully, that if they produce an uproar, as another forer suggests, she "will not be believed" (which was exactly what happened to me, everybody present, not the women who didn't support me either in spite of having been harassed too,  claimed I was undergoing an attack of hysteria).





LouisaB said:


> I agree with maxiogee - and would stress that in ireney's case it was the _man_ who 'struck the first blow' by assaulting her in the first place. The man committed a criminal act - and deserved exactly what he got.


Yes,  I have the experience that men in these cases do not listen to quiet and good words alone.


> When it's happened to me, I've done my best to give verbal warnings (hard in a crowd when you don't know who it is), and I've tried physically to force the hand away without success. What I do now is follow the hand to the arm to the body to the leg, and dig a stiletto as firmly as I can into the foot - and wait to see who screams.
> 
> But perhaps that's too aggressive of me?


I don't think so!



Sallyb36 said:


> I agree with Maxiogee again, that violence is never a good idea. I can only condone it as a form of self-defence, and even then only if there is no other option.


Which agrees with the theory that  a woman should look _the other way_ and "hold out" and not say a word. If you have been harassed a couple of times, you don't talk like this any more.



serg79 said:


> If we're talking about being groped on a train or in any public place, how about just shouting at the offender something like: "You dirty f*cking pervert! Keep your hands to yourself!"


This has been done, dear serg. Normally the pervert in question simply puts your screaming your head off down to " being hysterical " and that he was certainly not touching you. ¡Qué disparate! Let's not talk about masturbating! What a thought!!


----------



## heidita

> Originally Posted by *Luke Warm*
> I would find being embarrassed in front of a crowd as a chauvenist pig far more painful than a slap.


 
The problem is that men who_ practise_ this kind of harassment actually make some kind of sport of it. They have all kind of resources! They will never admit to having harassed anybody and one can imagine that it is difficult to prove in a crowded place. He will always _attack back_, talking about hysterical women etc. A *norma*l man would feel bad, Luke, but we are *not* talking about normal men here. 




> Then it is obviously kinder, more merciful, to slap men who feel the same way as you do, isn't it?


Very nicely put!


----------



## heidita

Something else to take into accout.

*Where do you get the idea from that only "tarted up" women get harassed?*

 That's not a fact, as I was in this awkward situation dressed in sports clothes and certainly not tarted up! 

Men who make it their way of living , sort of, do not mind who they touch or harass. They might prefer a pretty woman, but I personally think , they rather look for weak looking women, women they know who will be extremely uncomfortable and not "hit back". 
_My _harasser certainly didn't have a good eye sight!


----------



## ElaineG

> Men who make it their way of living , sort of, do not mind who they touch or harass. They might prefer a pretty woman, but I personally think , they rather look for weak looking women, women they know who will be extremely uncomfortable and not "hit back".


 
I agree with you 1000%.  A close friend of mine, an Orthodox Jewish woman who always dresses modestly as required by her religion (skirts below the calf, thick stockings, high necked long-sleeve blouses or sweaters -- not form fitting, hair covered in a hat or cap), has been flashed, groped and otherwise molested on the subway more times than she can count.  We often talk about this -- she has taken far more of this abuse than any of those of our friends who dress "normally" including wearing mini-skirts and small tops during the summer etc. etc.  She is by far the most picked on in our crowd -- and she is by far the "plainest" -- she looks like a kind religious mother of three, which is what she is.  

Similarly, my grandmother, at the age of 75+, once had a man on a bus take out his penis and try to rub it on her leg. ( She hit him the stomach with her bag and started screaming at the top of her lungs - go Grandma!)  Although I remember my grandmother fondly as a beautiful woman, I doubt this behavior was brought on by her provocative attire (probably polyester slacks and a cardigan and, of course, a scarf to prevent against drafts!) or overwhelming physical attributes.

Men who engage in that sort of behavior are not trying to get a "hot" woman.  They are the sort of weak men who do not think they can attract women in the normal way and resort to preying on women who seem vulnerable as an outlet for their twisted sexuality.


----------



## Luke Warm

heidita said:


> The problem is that men who_ practise_ this kind of harassment actually make some kind of sport of it. They have all kind of resources! They will never admit to having harassed anybody and one can imagine that it is difficult to prove in a crowded place. He will always _attack back_, talking about hysterical women etc. A *norma*l man would feel bad, Luke, but we are *not* talking about normal men here.


 
I understand where you're coming from, but I still feel that using a physical assault (a slap) to counter a physical assault (groping) might invite even more trouble.  I realize how infuriating being the victim of such actions must be, as my wife, who happens to be rather small and young looking, also has to deal with this from time to time.  She happens to be exceptionally quick witted (certainly quicker than I) and will first make a loud comment that disarms and embarasses the guy.  If after the comment drawing attention to the situation the guy is still aggressive (which he never has been after she's embarassed him), then most likely it would be evident to people around what's going on.  And if it came to the point that she had to physically defend herself, though she may be at a size disadvantage, I pity the guy because she knows what to do to truly hurt someone.  Squeezing and twisting the right part or biting, even if it's just an arm, will always be a more effective deterrent than a slap.  I just don't think using violence is a very good first tactic.


----------



## Luke Warm

Why is it not mandatory that girls and women are taught how to handle this sort of situation as from all these stories it seems so common?  I know if I ever have a daughter, she'll have several good lines at the ready and the self-defense know-how to defend herself if necessary.


----------



## Cath.S.

ElaineG said:
			
		

> Men who engage in that sort of behavior are not trying to get a "hot" woman. They are the sort of weak men who do not think they can attract women in the normal way and resort to preying on women who seem vulnerable as an outlet for their twisted sexuality.


This is very true according to mu experience, Elaine, the only times when it ever happened to me is when I was feeling down for some other reason - and not "tarted up" in the slightest, incidentally -. This is why it is important for a woman to look - and feel confident - not tough, not hard, neither defensive nor aggressive, just in harmony with herself. I realise it does not come natural to most of us, it is something that has to be worked on. 

One of my best female friends tends to be scared to go out on her own after dark, (even to the corner shop) I'm trying to convince her she should try and get rid of her fear, as predators sense it; it's no good pretending that you're not scared if you are, you won't fool anybody, though oddly enough, in the beginning you have to sort of pretend to _yourself_ that you feel more confident than you actually do, in order to allow that confidence to grow.

I hope I was not too off topic.


----------



## emma42

Absolutely right, Elaine.  Harassment is about power, aggression and humiliation, as is rape.  It is not about healthy sexual attraction.

For many women, their reaction to harassment (or sexual assault, as I would rather put it), will depend on various factors, as will anyone's reaction to any kind of assault - factors such as mood at the time, being so taken by surprise that no reaction ensues, being so sick of being harassed again and again that one instinctively answers with a slap, punch, whatever.

When I worked as a para-legal, I was involved in many "self-defence" cases, and each one was different and the defendant's actions open to interpretation because when one is in certain situations it is very difficult to weigh up to a nicety the appropriate reaction.  What may be considered "reasonable" by one person, may not be considered "reasonable" by another.


----------



## heidita

Luke Warm said:


> I understand where you're coming from, but I still feel that using a physical assault (a slap) to counter a physical assault (groping) might invite even more trouble.


 
I actually had one of my front tooth smashed in when defending myself from one of these weirdos. My husband is frequently worried, as I can never hold back from any of this grabbing, masturbating, and sex-wild idiots, who get their pleasure not so much from the touching itself but from the unpleasantness and embarrassment they cause.. I do think one must not show any ind of fear or embarrassment which will give them extreme pleasure. I just get angry. 

I understand that the method your wife uses might work in Germany, but it certainly doesn't over here. Men who are used to doing this, have their own methods to put you into an even more embarrassing situation if you dare to "cry out".


----------



## heidita

ElaineG said:


> Similarly, my grandmother, at the age of 75+, once had a man on a bus take out his penis and try to rub it on her leg. ( She hit him the stomach with her bag and started screaming at the top of her lungs - go Grandma!) Although I remember my grandmother fondly as a beautiful woman, I doubt this behavior was brought on by her provocative attire .


 
Heers to your Grandma!



emma42 said:


> Absolutely right, Elaine. Harassment is about power, aggression and humiliation, as is rape. It is not about healthy sexual attraction.


 
Exactly, men have the tendency to think that it usually happens to very attractive women or "tarted up" ones. This is not the case. 
While I pressed charges against the last masturbating idiot, the policeman, by the way, to whom I was explaining the fact that it had been in such an open place and at 12 noon, and probably difficult to believe, he said, no way, that people like this preferred open and well visited places as their aim was to scandalize the woman and to make her feel embarrassed, not the actual sexual relief.


----------



## Luke Warm

As I'm sure this sort of behavior occurs pretty much everywhere around the world, why isn't more being done to stop this?  For example, what are the punishments in your country of residence if one of these guys is caught?  I imagine such behavior is a hard thing to prove.  Are local or state governments trying to DO anything about this obviously universal problem?  If not, why aren't people organizing to at least raise awareness if not to create harsher laws?  The US has some pretty strict laws against sex offenders, and while the problem certainly still exists there, at least the deterents are in place and people are aware.


----------



## heidita

Luke Warm said:


> As I'm sure this sort of behavior occurs pretty much everywhere around the world, why isn't more being done to stop this? For example, what are the punishments in your country of residence if one of these guys is caught?


 
Yes, hard to prove, that's why women keep from shouting out or pressing charges. 
I can only talk about this masturbating weirdo, whom I pressed charges against and never heard anything about this: three years ago! 
No wonder women prefer to do "the correct thing" and look the other way.


----------



## ElaineG

> Yes, hard to prove, that's why women keep from shouting out or pressing charges.


 
Earlier this year, there was a great story here in NY: a frequent subway masturbator was caught thanks to a brave young woman who used her camera phone to snap him in the act. http://nymag.com/news/features/16576/index.html

The picture was widely distributed on the Internet, and he was quickly identified as a reasonably prominent vegan restaranteur, and charged! A happy ending.

There is now an awesome website where women post pictures of street harassers:  http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/.  I think it's a very empowering idea.

So keep those cameras at the ready, girls!


----------



## Luke Warm

I don't know how common an occurence this is here, but as it seems pretty common in Madrid, why don't women and sympathetic men organize to put a stop to that sort of behavior.  These guys should be greatly outnumbered, and maybe if people get organized and raise a stink things would change.  Nobody other than the perverts themselves wants that in their city.


----------



## heidita

ElaineG said:


> So keep those cameras at the ready, girls!


I don't have a mobile phone as I hate them intensely, but now I am thinking......


----------



## serg79_

ElaineG said:


> There is now an awesome website where women post pictures of street harassers: hollabacknyc.blogspot.com. I think it's a very empowering idea.
> 
> So keep those cameras at the ready, girls!


(or, just to see it from a different angle):

Keep those lawyers at the ready, guys! (and girls)

Because you might find that someone has posted your photo on a website viewed by thousands of people, saying that you harassed someone when you didn't.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ElaineG said:


> There is now an awesome website where women post pictures of street harassers:  http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/.  I think it's a very empowering idea.
> 
> So keep those cameras at the ready, girls!



Just one question, Elaine:

Let's pretend you're very pissed off at me, you really got the hump and you want your revange for something bad I've done to you, therefore you plan to take a shot of me and put it on that site pretending I'm a mugger or whatever..it's your word ( a woman, devasted for maybe having been harassed) against my word ( a man, so implicitly and naturally a molester as some women tend to think).
Couldn't a site like that be used by some women who just wants to revange themselves on their partners- husbands-boyfriends-work colleagues ?


----------



## serg79_

Exactly what I was thinking, Paul...


----------



## maxiogee

Paulfromitaly said:


> Couldn't a site like that be used by some women who just want to revange themselves on their partners- husbands-boyfriends-work colleagues ?



I imagine that the plan is that women post pics of the guy which were taken as he was doing the harassing.
What guy would have an innocent explanation as to why he had his penis exposed on a train?


----------



## Luke Warm

maxiogee said:


> What guy would have an innocent explanation as to why he had his penis exposed on a train?


 
Maybe he was confused about where he kept his wallet?
OK, bad taste, just trying to lighten the discussion.  My apologies to anyone I've offended by joking about a very serious subject. 

All jokes aside though, because there would be an issue of men being falsely accused, posting anything short of proof would be asking for litigation. (Still, who's to say that someone hasn't already posted pictures falsely accusing any one of us of something?)  The fact is though, unless such an operation is organized, it is doubtful that it would garner enough attention or hold enough clout to be effective. It would be best if it were organized on a larger scale in correspondence with (though not necessarily operations of) existing legal bodies, ie. city police or government. Such an organization could only post pictures in cases where actual proof existed or else risk the aforementioned litigation and the credibility of all valid postings. Basically a false posting could shut the operation down. And other than clear-cut cases, proof is hard to get. However, if the organization is well marketed, one would be more likely to be able to enlist the support of witnesses as people would be generally more aware. And as people become more actively aware, perhaps the organization could lobby for harsher laws. Obviously, there is no way to completely stop such behavior, but the hope is that potential perpetrators would at least be deterred from acting.  Rather than having women out there fending for themselves and, in some cases, being brutalized, why not organize?  We're much stronger in numbers.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

maxiogee said:


> I imagine that the plan is that women post pics of the guy which were taken as he was doing the harassing.
> What guy would have an innocent explanation as to why he had his penis exposed on a train?



You're right, Tony, but I can assure you that several of my mates, guys and girls, have at least one silly pic of their partner's hot bits on the phone, taken for joke when they had some stuff out and you can't tell whether they were on a train or in a bedroom because the pic is often a close-up.
Those pictures would be perfect for a revangeful purpose.


----------



## emma42

I am really heartened by lukewarm's (and others') exhortations to "organize" against sexual assault and harassment.

In this country, the prevailing attitude towards involving oneself in someone else's assault seems to be "stay out of it".  There are, of course, (many?) exceptions. I can understand this approach, although I don't agre with it.  I have intervened in assaults (usually generally physical, without a sexual element), verbally, and found myself alone in my desire to better _my_ society.  This will not stop me intervening in the future.

It is so important that we act together, for all our sakes.


----------



## Luke Warm

Well it makes sense. I have a wife, a mother, a sister, cousins, nieces and nephews, friends, and will maybe have kids some day who I don't want subject to such uncivilized (putting it nicely) behavior. And while I can understand the feelings of helplessness and the urge to lash back physically against such violations, I don't think that solves the greater problem (maybe even exacerbating it) and would like to think that there are more civilized and effective approaches. These a55holes are in the minority and yet they seem to be the ones in charge. By sheer numbers it is illogical that that should be the case. But until people start believing that their confronting this problem will make a difference, then it's understandable, if not terribly honorable, for them to just look the other way.


----------



## heidita

emma42 said:


> It is so important that we act together, for all our sakes.


I wish a woman like you had been there when this weirdo was jerking off.

Actually, in the waiting room, there was a man, whom I personally knew from the bars around my neighbourhood and whom I asked for help in the occasion I mentioned above. Even seeing the fellows hard-on, I pointed out to him, he took the man's side and told me to calm down. Later, when I met him in the bar and my husband confronted him with the fact he said, I had been hysterical as everybody else agreed on and what did he know? The man might have had a very big penis indeed anyway...
Well, as I said, not even seeing it you get any help, and less of a man...Even though all the women around also kept quiet .....
I think these phone pics are a good idea.


----------



## emma42

And some people wonder why we would slap these men.

I have my doubts about the phone pictures, simply because photographs are _particularly _susceptible to doctoring (if you'll pardon the term!), in comparison with other forms of evidence.  I don't agree, however, that they are not a good idea because women might lie generally.  Following this logic, one could say that no one should ever be accused of anything because someone might lie.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

emma42 said:


> Following this logic, one could say that no one should ever be accused of anything because someone might lie.



One should say that anybody has to be accused of a crime without realiable evidence and a pic taken with a phone is not a reliable evidence by my opinion or at least is not enough to sentence a person. What actually happens is that once your have you pic on a website like that you're literally fu*cked and there's nothing you can do to show that you're not guilty.
It's a judgement without a trial.


----------



## emma42

Agreed, Paul.  I fear we are all going off-topic.


----------



## Luke Warm

Exactly why actions against men like these are best organized and made officially legitimate, so that they can be regulated to avoid false accusations and maintain credibility.  Trying to fix the problem on your own, from all the anecdotes in this thread, don't seem to have any lasting impact on the problem and in fact put the individual at even more risk.


----------



## emma42

The problem is, Luke warm, that actions against these men already are "officially legitimate".  What they do is against the law in my country.  The thing is to change attitudes (we can have a long debate about the best way to go about that).  But there still remains the question of how to deal with them "on the ground", at the time.  Should we slap 'em? (I know you've already answered that).


----------



## Luke Warm

Even though phone pics might not be valid as proof, but as the guy might not know that, it might stop him from doing what he's doing. Again, I don't think any physical action is wise because it could put you at more harm and it doesn't do anything to solve the problem. Try to see it from the perspective of these guys-- a slap or any physical reaction is predictable (unless you really know what you're doing and can cause damage-- though I still don't like the idea of using violence to quell violence as it doesn't solve the problem). I would think that doing something unexpected is a better defense. What they want is a reaction of shock or intimidation. Don't give them that satisfaction. As hard as it might be, maybe staying as calm and non-chalant as you can would be a better tactic. If you see the guy's penis, tell him how small it is-- laugh at him. Tell him how proud his mother must be. Make him self-conscious. If the guy is mentally ill as many of these guys might be, then maybe none of that will work. In that case, just walk away. But reacting with shock or violence is doing exactly what he expects and is prepared for.

And in the mean time, get organized against this behavior. Sure it's already against the law, but that doesn't seem to be preventing reoccurrence. Maybe the laws aren't harsh enough, and maybe catching these guys is too difficult. So we can just accept it as it is and do our best as individuals to fight it from a disadvantaged position, or we can organize and use the numbers to our advantage. The reality is, this will likely always be a problem, but if the larger society shows a strong and active intolerance for such behavior, then such incedents are far less likely to occur. Our biology and hormones indicate that this problem is not new, but civilization and societies have culled many other undesireable behaviors through organization, so there's no reason to think that this situation could not be impoved as well.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Luke Warm said:


> Even though phone pics might not be valid as proof, but as the guy might not know that, it might stop him from doing what he's doing.



That's a good point: I'm not against taking pics of the molester as it could really be the first step in order to help police set up a database of these criminals. I don't agree with putting the pics on a website unless it's the police themselves doing it, after having gathered a sufficient and reliable number of proofs against the harasser.
Slapping them would be just a way to shock them and make them run away, but it wouldn't solve the problem, if not only for the woman directly involved.


----------



## serg79_

maxiogee said:


> I imagine that the plan is that women post pics of the guy which were taken as he was doing the harassing.
> What guy would have an innocent explanation as to why he had his penis exposed on a train?


I thought that too, but I checked out the blog/website mentioned and there are some entries with just like a photo of a guy on the street and then some comments about what he's supposedly done.

Here's what one entry says (beneath of a photo of "the accused"):

_He still couldn't take his eyes of a woman's rear even as my phone was in his face. He and his friend eyed her and he said, "Have a nice day, gorgeous." But in the way that makes you feel anything but nice._

So apparently this guy deserves to be shamed just for looking at a woman's rear and saying "Have a nice day, gorgeous"...not exactly a crime, and who knows if he even did it.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

serg79_ said:


> Here's what one entry says (beneath of a photo of "the accused"):
> 
> _He still couldn't take his eyes of a woman's rear even as my phone was in his face. He and his friend eyed her and he said, "Have a nice day, gorgeous." But in the way that makes you feel anything but nice._
> 
> So apparently this guy deserves to be shamed just for looking at a woman's rear and saying "Have a nice day, gorgeous"...not exactly a crime, and who knows if he even did it.



If I don't get it wrong it was not the "victim" of the shameful glare who took the pic, but another woman walking down the street..
So I'm taking a walk with my girlfriend, I'm behind her and I'm looking at her bum..any woman notices me doing that, she decides offhand that I'm a perv, she takes a pic of the "harasser" and she puts it on that website.. really cool, ain't it?


----------



## Luke Warm

Even if it were assured that everyone on a site like that were actually guilty, who is going to go out of their way to look up the site and see if they can find someone they know? In the US, I've seen billboards with pictures of father's who have failed to pay child support, and I think that's pretty effective, especially if it's in a highly visual place (as billboards tend to be) like at the subway where I saw it. Now I know that whether a guy paid child support or not is pretty easy to prove-- either he did or he didn't-- whereas what we're talking about is rather difficult to prove. But if you even had a few proven cases and posted them on very visual billboards, guys would start thinking twice about behaving like that. But one false accusation and the the whole operation is discredited.


----------



## SPANISH DANCER

Fortunatly, I have never had such a nasty experience, but I completely agree with heidita and emma42.


----------



## emma42

Thank you, spanish dancer, and a warm welcome to the Forum!


----------



## Godiva3

SPANISH DANCER said:


> Fortunatly, I have never had such a nasty experience, but I completely agree with heidita and emma42.


I also agree with all of you!


----------



## Cath.S.

I'm really against ruining the whole life of a guy for something as harmless as showing his private parts on the underground. I'm not saying I condone that sort of behavior, I think it is silly and sick, but that does not make the man a bloody criminal against mankind, does it? 

So taking a picture and publishing it is in fact_ much_ nastier than slapping him or calling him names. It's an eye for an eyelash and that is plain wrong in my opinion.


----------



## maxiogee

egueule said:


> I'm really against ruining the whole life of a guy for something as harmless as showing his private parts on the underground. I'm not saying I condone that sort of behavior, I think it is silly and sick, but that does not make the man a bloody criminal against mankind, does it?



Well yes, it does actually!
Being able to get away with offensive behaviour is an act of oppression and dominance.
Would any of these railway-carriage or bus flashers walk into a bar full of hulking, greasy, hairy bikers and expose himself to an unaccompanied woman sitting there?


----------



## emma42

Dear egueule - "harmless"?  Surely not.  It's an assault (just to clarify, in English law, "assault" does not have to involve physical contact).  To be honest, I can _imagine_ situations in which I would laugh at such a man (perhaps if I were in a really good mood, felt safe and were with lots of friends),  but I can better imagine feeling very offended, frightened, nervous.

I still don't agree with the picture publishing, though, for reasons stated before.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

emma42 said:


> Dear egueule - "harmless"?  Surely not.  It's an assault (just to clarify, in English law, "assault" does not have to involve physical contact).  To be honest, I can _imagine_ situations in which I would laugh at such a man (perhaps if I were in a really good mood, felt safe and were with lots of friends),  but I can better imagine feeling very offended, frightened, nervous.
> 
> I still don't agree with the picture publishing, though, for reasons stated before.



I'm with you and Tony: classifying as "harmless" the act of lastfully flashing the willy to a lady who is clearly not interested is a bit too indulgent and a form of psychological violence like flashing bits can hurt more than a slap.


----------



## mjscott

I'm sorry to disagree--but even egueule's friend who is afraid to walk to the corner--_had_ to have had some sort-of traumatic happening to have made her life into a little mouse who is afraid to go out and get a quart of milk! What these guys do is no just "flashing the willy." Our thoughts about sex and sexual arousal are enculturated into us _for good or for bad--_since potty training. To unexpectedly be exposed to someone who is getting his jollies off because he knows it will cause a reaction can cause lasting and permanent trauma.

Do you think it's funny, guys? As far as I see it, it is bullying--it is a form of aggression
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

As one forero said in an earlier post, there are many more men who have a stigma in doing these things and thinking it's harmless bullying. It didn't leave a mark, and, "boy! did you see the reaction from that one!"--they say.

IT IS BULLYING. It is affecting lives in traumatic ways. Hooray for the women who have shown they stand up and do something about it to stop it from happening again. But there are thousands--hundreds of thousand of women whose voices have been muffled--and hundreds of thousands of men who are laughing because they just "pulled a good one--" not even aware that as long as women are victimized, they are being bullies!


----------



## Cath.S.

> It is affecting lives in traumatic ways


I think this only happens because our societies say nudity and sex are evil and shameful. In what *I* would recognize as a healthy society, the sight of sex parts or sex acts should not be traumatic. It is purely cultural, wheras even in the animal realm other female mammals react to being* touched* as they would towards an other type of aggression. 

People tend to be more traumatised by something when the whole of society tells them they ought to. Should we cherish the trauma to such an extent?

Of course you can tell me, well, this is the way our society works.
All I have to say is I hope it will evolve at some stage, and taking each other to court for petty (yes, I mean it, *petty*) reasons won't help.

We need more love and understanding and forgiveness, not more law, imo.

You may say I'm a dreamer... comme disait le poète.


----------



## emma42

Egueule, mon pote, flashers and harassers have nothing to do with healthy sexuality or a healthy acceptance of human nudity.


----------



## ireney

Egueule these people don't act this way because they ae sexually liberated. In fact if it wasn't considered shopcking and imporper to show your genitals they wouldn't do it (flashers) and harassers, if all they wanted was sex they would just take part in the modern intricate dance we have evolved so as to have sex. And anyway we are not animals so, I am not interested whether a male whatever can have its way with a female whatever or pester the said female if she shows she's not interested. Harassing someone is more than a desire to have se with this particular female. Sometimes (if not most) harassing is its own purpose (sorry my English fail me today).


----------



## heidita

egueule said:


> I think this only happens because our societies say nudity and sex are evil and shameful. In what *I* would recognize as a healthy society, the sight of sex parts or sex acts should not be traumatic.


 
I do not know what can be healthy about seeing someone jerking off in front of you and do whatever he can to make you LOOK! The man, I was telling everybody about, actually hit my foot to make me look, as I was trying at the beginning to look away, as I knew perfectly well: no attention paid, no fun for him. But then he kicked me slightly with his foot to MAKE me raise my face. So much the worse for him. I got furious. Not because of the sight of his ridiculous penis, one can see any number nowadays everywhere, but because he was harassing me. This is obviously still not understood by everybody, especially reading your post. 


> People tend to be more traumatised by something when the whole of society tells them they ought to. Should we cherish the trauma to such an extent?


I am personally not traumatized by these things, but I am an adult. What if this happened to a fifteen year old?





> You may say I'm a dreamer... comme disait le poète.


I don't think you are a dreamer, but I do think you are not aware of the damage caused, if not you wouldn't speak so lightly about this topic. And you have certainly never been harassed. Lucky you!




ireney said:


> .. if all they wanted was sex they would just take part in the modern intricate dance we have evolved so as to have sex. ...Harassing someone is more than a desire to have sex with this particular female. Sometimes (if not most) harassing is its own purpose (sorry my English fail me today).


 
That's exactly it. The harrasser in question only got a hard on when I finally looked!
It is not the sex they are looking for, it is all about power and domination.


----------



## Fuzz

no, maybe it's hard sometimes... BUT YOU MUST RETURN GOOD EVEN IF YOU RECEIBE A BAD  ACTION...


----------



## heidita

Fuzz said:


> no, maybe it's hard sometimes... BUT YOU MUST _RETURN GOOD_ EVEN IF YOU RECEIBE A BAD ACTION...


 
Well, I hit him but I didn't publish his photo, so I DID the right thing.


----------



## maxiogee

Fuzz said:


> no, maybe it's hard sometimes... BUT YOU MUST RETURN GOOD EVEN IF YOU RECEIBE A BAD  ACTION...



Why? What morality obliges that?
This is a truly ridiculous statement.

I could understand if you said that one shouldn't do harm, but to oblige a victim of any bad action to return good is truly ludicrous.


----------



## Cath.S.

Heidita said:
			
		

> I do not know what can be healthy about seeing someone jerking off in front of you


I happen to think that it would not have to happen _that way_ in a sexually *free* - I did not say "permissive" as I believe they are two different things - society. All that guilt and hiding the body is truly sick. We are ashamed of sex and ashamed of our bodies and it is pointless to try and make a  flaw sound like a virtue.

The thing is, I see absolutely nothing wrong in masturbation. Even public masturbation. So what ? How can it hurt someone to know that people have sexual urges? How is it unhealthy to see something that does not bring about death or pain ? I might be a minority of one, never mind that, this is the way I feel. 




> And you have certainly never been harassed. Lucky you!


Don't be so... cocksure, lady. I have been harassed several times in several different ways during my forty-six years on this hapless, pleasure-hating, guilt-loving planet.
But yes, I am lucky since I _decided_ not to let it affect me too deep. 



> It is not the sex they are looking for, it is all about power and domination.


This is a cliché, not a scientific truth. But it has been repeated so many times that people think it's carved in stone.


			
				Fuzz said:
			
		

> BUT YOU MUST RETURN GOOD EVEN IF YOU RECEIBE A BAD ACTION...


Hi Fuzz, you should not "shout" (use capital letters) but I fully agree with you.


			
				Maxiogee said:
			
		

> Why? What morality obliges that?


The Christian one does, if I am not mistaken. As a kid I was taught to love my enemies. I don't believe in God any more, but I still condone that sort of behavior.


----------



## maxiogee

egueule said:


> The Christian one does, if I am not mistaken. As a kid I was taught to love my enemies. I don't believe in God any more, but I still condone that sort of behavior.



I think you'll find that the Christian morality says nothing of the sort. One need not return good for bad, one just needs to love one's neighbour - this does not require that one do positive things in exchange for negative ones received. Jesus reportedly said one should turn the other cheek, not kiss the offender!


----------



## Cath.S.

maxiogee said:


> I think you'll find that the Christian morality says nothing of the sort. One need not return good for bad, one just needs to love one's neighbour - this does not require that one do positive things in exchange for negative ones received. Jesus reportedly said one should turn the other cheek, not kiss the offender!


Everyone has their own interpretation of love, I suppose.
But Christ said:
_But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, *do good to those who hate you*, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28)._
Did reading this do you any good, Maxiogee? __


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

I understand egueule's point.
And moreover, I think that being seen as a deviant (?) when you're not one could cause at least as much trauma as being harassed by a real one. (I'm not sure I'm clear...)


----------



## heidita

egueule said:


> I happen to think that it would not have to happen _that way_ in a sexually *free* - I did not say "permissive" as I believe they are two different things - society. All that guilt and hiding the body is truly sick. We are ashamed of sex and ashamed of our bodies and it is pointless to try and make a flaw sound like a virtue.
> 
> The thing is, I see absolutely nothing wrong in masturbation. Even public masturbation. So what ? How can it hurt someone to know that people have sexual urges?


 
So someone masturbates in front of you and you don't mind? In a public place? And making you look so as to make him feel aroused? Because on thing is sure. these men do not get any pleasure whatsoever if you don't look or if you pay no attention. I can only repeat to you: this behaviour is not about sex but about oppression and domination. In any case, do look up the definition of harassment: the act of tormenting.




> Langelan describes three different classes of harassers. First there is the _predatory harasser_ who gets sexual thrills from humiliating others. This harasser may become involved in sexual extortion, and may frequently harass just to see how targets respond--those who don't resist may even become targets for rape. Next, there is the _dominance harasser,_ the most common type, who engages in harassing behaviour as an ego boost. Third are _strategic_ or _territorial harassers,_ who seek to maintain privilege in jobs or physical locations, for example a man's harassing female employees in a predominantly male occupation. (Langelan, 1993)


 



> Don't be so... cocksure,


 

Should I take this as an insult? 



> I have been harassed several times in several different ways during my forty-six years on this hapless, pleasure-hating, guilt-loving planet.


Does that mean, as the men who harass women, according to you, only seek pleasure, that we are _the guilty-loving ones_? The ones who hit back?




> This is a cliché, not a scientific truth. But it has been repeated so many times that people think it's carved in stone.


It doesn't_ need_ to be carved in stone, as anybody who has been harassed once knows perfectly well that harassing is not about sex but about power.


----------



## Cath.S.

Heidita said:
			
		

> Don't be so... cocksure,
> 
> Should I take this as an insult?


Merely as a pun.


			
				Heidita said:
			
		

> anybody who has been harassed once knows perfectly well that harassing is not about sex but about power.


Nope, I _do not_ happen to know this perfectly well. Can you at least accept that people may react to things or analyze them differently from you? You might want to read your own signature again. 


			
				Heidita said:
			
		

> Langelan describes three different classes of harassers.


S/he forgot one main category: the pathetic male that has absolutely no self-confidence. Please allow me to feel at least some sympathy for the utterly lost. I'll then allow the honorable members of the Moral Majority to stone them to death. 





			
				KaRiNe_Fr said:
			
		

> I understand egueule's point.


Thanks Karine, I understand mine is not a popular point of view. 

__________________
The Immoral Minority


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

egueule said:


> Thanks Karine, I understand mine is not a popular point of view.


In fact I don't only understand, but share the majority (!) of your thoughts about nudity and sexuality seen as taboo in our society. I remember a post of mine into a thread about nudity where I was not on the Moral Majority either...


----------



## Cath.S.

emma42 said:


> Egueule, mon pote, flashers and harassers have nothing to do with healthy sexuality or a healthy acceptance of human nudity.


Mon pote, c'est pour les hommes, Emma, moi je suis une femme. 
Flashers, imo, are a sad result of our societies' lack of acceptance of human nudity and of the shameful status of sex.


----------



## emma42

Oh, là là, Egueule! (Oui, je sais que tu es femme, mais j'ai lu "mon pote" entre les femmes...)

L'acceptation de la nudité comme une chose tout à fait naturelle est forcément différent de la situation qu'on discute ici.


----------



## sanznvagh

I shall simply state:  If a man is harrassing a woman and is offensive and even physical with her, yet this woman is physically able to defend herself, then, by all means BEAT THE LIVING SH** OUT OF HIM.  Why shouldn't she put him in his place.  Men today seem to forget how to treat a lady, because of what they see on TV.  They refer to woman as "bitches" and "hoes", so they treat ALL women like this, when it's just not so.  I am no ones "bitch" or "hoe".  I, am a lady. You will address me as such.  Open the door for me, pull out my chair, pay for dinner, and I will thank you and bid you goodnight, and may offer you the opportunity to take me out to dinner again, no guarentee for anything else but that.
You reap what you sow. Everyone does.  Unavoidable.


----------



## LouisaB

Hi, sanznvagh, and welcome to the Forum!

I agree with you in most respects, but I think the problem we have (at least in the UK) is that women's rights have consistently demanded _equality_ with men. There are even women who abuse men who open doors for them for treating them as weak, second class citizens. I think the real issue in the question which started this thread is: if women demand equality, how can they reasonably suddenly expect to be treated like frail little flowers when it suits them?

In that sense I fear we _are_ reaping exactly what we've sown. We've won the right to vote, we're getting there with equal opportunities under the law, but some of our more extreme sisters have cost us the right to be treated as ladies.


----------



## emma42

Please, there is no need for any of this "lady" business.  Men and women should treat eachother with respect, and no one should flash his willy in public.


----------



## mjscott

I agree with emma. We are not discussing nudity. We are discussing harassment. If I say something and it offends someone, I learn. If I do it a second time, I am pushing my will (a powerplay) upon society. There is plenty place for nudity, masturbation, anything you want in whatever relationship you want. If you have that in the privacy of a loving relationship with an accepting partner, fine. But if that is available to everyone, and yet, doing it in public offends people to the point of hurting them (What? Is it _their_ fault that for whatever reason their private training causes shame now?)--why would someone do it?!?

If my husband had a sexual hangup caused by potty training, or whatever (who knows?) I would care for him by having patience and getting him therapy or education that will make for a trusting relationship and contribute to a healthier society....
....It is outright bullying to force trauma upon people--just because you thing society is wrong! I don't think that if you truly cared to change society and cared to change people into a healthy outlook, you would continue the trauma "therapy" of forcing your little jerk-offs on their field of view. It is an aggressive act of bullying.


----------



## sanznvagh

LouisaB said:


> Hi, sanznvagh, and welcome to the Forum!
> 
> I agree with you in most respects, but I think the problem we have (at least in the UK) is that women's rights have consistently demanded _equality_ with men. There are even women who abuse men who open doors for them for treating them as weak, second class citizens. I think the real issue in the question which started this thread is: if women demand equality, how can they reasonably suddenly expect to be treated like frail little flowers when it suits them?
> 
> In that sense I fear we _are_ reaping exactly what we've sown. We've won the right to vote, we're getting there with equal opportunities under the law, but some of our more extreme sisters have cost us the right to be treated as ladies.


 
In turn, I agree with you with respects to sisters costing us. I believe in being treated as equals with some issues.  I shouldn't be paid less because I'm a woman, when I'm just as smart and hard-working as a man.  I can pay for dinner, I do work.  But why treat every woman like an "equal rights nazi" when not ALL women are?
I'm all for equality, but I'm still, very much, of the old fashioned "Lady".  I want to be respected, not catorgerized because of what others have done before me and are doing now.  Don't get me wrong, I'm very independant also.  I can do, for myself.  Being a lady, doesn't mean I want or need some man to take care of me. Far from.  I can well do that on my own.  But when being approached, as I often am, I prefer a man of intelligence, courtesy and above all, respect.  So, if a "thug" approaches me with, "Yo, what's up shortie."  Exactly what response does he expect of me?  I'm not of Asian decent, my name is not Yo, and I'm 5'7, so by no means am I considered short, so why be angry when I roll my eyes, snear and snub you?  Why call me "stuck up bitch"?  Why disrespect me?....Have I gone off on a rant?


----------



## emma42

sanznvagh (welcome, by the way).  You are simply describing respect - nothing to do with being an "old-fashioned lady", the meaning of which I have had to guess.


----------



## sanznvagh

Nothing about a woman is ever simple. (thanks for the welcomes)


----------



## Luke Warm

emma42 said:


> L'acceptation de la nudité comme une chose tout à fait naturelle est forcément différent de la situation qu'on discute ici.


 
I agree.  Certainly, as the problem of men harassing women with public flashing and masturbation is a symptom of a larger problem of social acceptance of nudity and sexuality, we should in fact pity both the perpetrator and the victim.  However, harassment of any sort is undesireable, and anyone being unwillingly forced to partake in another's pleasure is unacceptable.  

In an ideal world, societies would set aside separate, non-commercialized places for social nudity and sexuality (separately, as they are not necessarily the same thing) and vehemently restrict such behavior from mainstream life.  While some societies do allow social nudity in designated areas, generally sexuality is taboo and is exploited commercially in the form of pornography.  In this way, our sexualities are being marketed and sold like a drug; we are enticed into believing we need more than we do, but then that need is never truly satisfied.  The result is a hyper-repressed sexuality that results in lashing marked by the public harassments that we are now discussing.

Unfortunately, changing societies' opinions regarding nudity and sexuality is futile when competing with the potential profitability of pornography.  Therefore our efforts are best directed towards controlling the symptoms-- still a daunting task, but still better than turning a blind eye to and accepting harassment.


----------



## gabbalannah

nobody should hit anybody, no matter what happens between them...you should talk it over with "him" and be mature about it


----------



## heidita

egueule said:


> Mon pote, c'est pour les hommes, Emma, moi je suis une femme.
> Flashers, imo, are a sad result of our societies' lack of acceptance of human nudity and of the shameful status of sex.


 
As some forers have already pointed out, we are not discussing the attitude of flashers or , for instance, streakers here. We are talking about direct harassment, making the woman feel uncomfortable, grabbing her, touching her, let her feel the power.



emma42 said:


> Oh, là là, Egueule! (Oui, je sais que tu es femme, mais j'ai lu "mon pote" entre les femmes...)
> 
> L'acceptation de la nudité comme une chose tout à fait naturelle est forcément différent de la situation qu'on discute ici.


I gather that's what I meant.




egueule said:


> Merely as a pun.


 
Nice word games, lady.



> Can you at least accept that people may react to things or analyze them differently from you?


 
So, I understand you are against hitting and publishing photos. How would you react? Or how should one react? Be adult about it, like gabbanah says? Take the hand which is grabbing you and lead it to more parts of your body, once that he is at it, shouldn't we make the "_poor pathetic male with no self confidence"_ make more comfortable and show him that he can repeat what he is doing doing any time and on anybody?





LouisaB said:


> Hi, sanznvagh, and welcome to the Forum!
> 
> I agree with you in most respects, but I think the problem we have (at least in the UK) is that women's rights have consistently demanded _equality_ with men.


 
...which is another topic.



> how can they reasonably suddenly expect to be treated like frail little flowers when it suits them?


I am sorry, are you talking about harassment here? I think I am misunderstanding.




emma42 said:


> Please, there is no need for any of this "lady" business. Men and women should treat each other with respect, and no one should flash his willy in public.


 
I agree with this, though I don't mind that so much. I think that is rather a traumatising feature for younger people.



mjscott said:


> I agree with emma. *We are not discussing nudity. We are discussing harassment.* If I say something and it offends someone, I learn. If I do it a second time, I am pushing my will (a powerplay) upon society. There is plenty place for nudity, masturbation, anything you want in whatever relationship you want. If you have that in the privacy of a loving relationship with an accepting partner, fine. But if that is available to everyone, and yet, doing it in public offends people to the point of hurting them ..


 
That's the point. We are talking about pain inflicted on people. Not about nudity or the society's fault at not accepting nudity.
[QUOTE]...It is outright bullying to force trauma upon people--just because you thing society is wrong! I don't think that if you truly cared to change society and cared to change people into a healthy outlook, you would continue the trauma "therapy" of forcing your little jerk-offs on their field of view. It is an aggressive act of bullying.[/quote]




Luke Warm said:


> However, harassment of any sort is undesirable, and anyone being unwillingly forced to partake in another's pleasure is unacceptable.


 
I think that's the main point . Why should I allow somebody to force his will on me? The next thing we will hear is : Ok, you 're raped by a poor disturbed male. Just lay back and enjoy, be adult about it.





gabbalannah said:


> nobody should hit anybody, no matter what happens between them...you should talk it over with "him" and be mature about it


Yes, let's be mature about it. Talk it over! That's really a good idea. I am sorry, I don't want to make fun of this situation but this is being very unrealistic.


----------



## LouisaB

LouisaB said:


> I agree with you in most respects, but I think the problem we have (at least in the UK) is that women's rights have consistently demanded _equality_ with men.


 


heidita said:


> ...which is another topic.
> 
> I am sorry, are you talking about harassment here? I think I am misunderstanding.


 
Yes, heidita, I think you are misunderstanding. My post was probably too brief to make itself clear, but this is _exactly_ the topic.

The question of the thread was not 'Is it right to sexually harass women?' If it were, I'm not sure I'd even bother to reply, because it so obviously isn't! The question was - *'should it be considered acceptable for a woman to slap a man who's harassing her, when reaction would be very different if a man slapped a woman for the same reason'?'*

As you'll have seen from my earlier post, I would definitely slap a man who harassed me, if verbal methods failed. I consider sexual (or other) harassment to be about power, and the desire to humiliate and degrade. I believe a woman has the right to defend herself in any way she can.

BUT - I think there is a tiny grain of a worthwhile question going unanswered here. There are women in my country who are so aggressively feminist they verbally attack men for showing them no more than basic courtesy. I have been on the Underground when a man offered a woman his seat - and the woman then ranted at him for being a sexist, patronising pig. To me, this is wrong. Respect and courtesy should never, ever be responded to in this way. However, if women appear genuinely to want a world in which they are treated EXACTLY the same as men, then it would be hypocritical for those same women to insist that sexual harassment of a woman is worse then the same for a man, or for them to claim the right to slap while denying the same right to men.

I am quite capable of defending myself, and have done so many times, verbally, physically - and legally The last man who harassed me did so by phone and e-mail over a two year period, and has just spent three months in prison. But I had to fight to be taken seriously on this. I was genuinely traumatised by what was said and done to me, but my (male) bosses took the line that 'it's only talk, ignore it'. I could see their point, because a male colleague of mine was subjected to similar filth by the same offender, and he just thought it was funny. BUT this sexual harassment _is_ worse for a woman. I felt violated by it, and was at times physically frightened. On this occasion, I felt a victim of the culture whereby women are no longer expected to be sensitive to such things. If a man masturbates in front of us, we are not expected to be shocked or distressed as our grandmothers might have been, we are expected to laugh. Sometimes you can't.

Yes, it's men who are doing the harassing, and I have no brief for anyone who defends that. But _I think women need to accept some responsibility for the weakening of our own position by insisting equal means identical_. I want equal rights, but I am not the same as a man, I do not respond to things in the same way as a man, I am not 'turned on' by seeing partial male nudity in a public place, and I do not want to be sexually touched by strangers.

Sorry if that's too long a reply, but your questions seemed to make it necessary.

Louisa


----------



## Nunty

Here's a situation:
A man decides to sit down next to a woman on a bus, open his trousers, and masturbate. He does this because he feels that the free expression of his sexuality demands it. The free expression of his sexuality also demands that one or more women watch him masturbate, and that these women be taken by surprise. (Otherwise he would just ask his wife or partner to share the sublime moments with him or hire a sex-industry worker to watch.) The woman or women (or little girls) are made his involuntary partners in this "expression of his sexuality".

What do we call that when one person forces another to be his sexual partner, whether or not this involves intercourse? Sexual assault.

Sorry. That act is not about someone freely and harmlessly expressing his sexuality. It is about assault.

This thread has taken in a very broad spectrum of acts that are included in "harassment": leering, groping, flashing, masturbating in public. I do not think that we women should respond to each act in the same way, but I do believe that we should respond.

And yes I am a devout Christian and yes I believe in turning the other cheek. I do not think that means that if some poor guy who can't get his satisfaction in acceptable ways masturbates in front of me that I have to gaze on admiringly, maybe applaud at the _dénouement.

_Many of the posts in this thread have made me angry. Perhaps because I have been a victim of different kinds of sexual assault at different times of my life and in different circumstances, but perhaps also because I see a lot of fuzzy thinking. A truly liberal society does not allow some people to exercise "rights" at the expense of others. Period.


----------



## Luke Warm

heidita,

I'm interested.  7 pages into this post, and having already told us of your your rather frightening experiences of harassment-- having a tooth knocked out etc.-- and having read all the debate on these pages, if (when) this happens to you again, will you react the same way as you did before?  I understand your anger, but as you know, I still don't think reacting with violence is the best or safest solution.  I think taking a picture of the guy with your mobile isn't a bad idea; though it might not be solid evidence and posting it on the internet might not bring anything, it might work as a deterrent even so.  And what are your thoughts about attempting to officially organize in protest and to raise awareness of such behavior?  I'm interested in your thoughts.  Thank you.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Heidi said:
			
		

> Why should I allow somebody to force his will on me? The next thing we will hear is : Ok, you 're raped by a poor disturbed male. Just lay back and enjoy, be adult about it.





			
				Nun-T said:
			
		

> I do not think that means that if some poor guy who can't get his satisfaction in acceptable ways masturbates in front of me that I have to gaze on admiringly, maybe applaud at the _dénouement._


Heidi, Nun-T: that's not fair.  It's what we call in French "un procès d'intention" (a trial by intented motives?). When and who did say that?
Thinking those behaviours are related to our judeo-christian society (and  its taboo about sex) does not make me someone who applaudes such behaviours. Maybe it's not the thread to speak about it, but I don't see why you should be angry because of it.
Yes, no one have the right to "use" a sexual partner in whatever maner without his/her will. Maybe I should repeat it too as it seems not to be that obvious.
Yes, anyone can react as he/she wants or as his/her character/religious beliefs leads him/her (I thought) in front of a sexual assault. Discussing, shouting, slapping, hitting... taking a picture... shooting, maybe? Yes, I can make "procès d'intention" too! 
Have a peaceful day without any anger.


----------



## Nunty

We are not talking about a taboo against sex here, dear Karine, but about a taboo against forcing someone to do something against his or her will, in this case, observe a sexual act. Why are his "rights" greater than everyone else's?

For the record, I have nothing against sex between consenting partners and in an appropriate time and place. Like it or not, we live in society, and society makes rules. Anarchy is fun to play at, but doesn't work in real life.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Nun-T said:
			
		

> We are not talking about a taboo against sex here, dear Karine, but about a taboo against forcing someone to do something against his or her will, in this case, observe a sexual act. Why are his "rights" greater than everyone else's?


We are not, even evoking it as a possible cause, that's why I won't answer and won't speak about another possible world as we are living in this one and of course as it is too wonderful nobody will want to change it. 
And no, his "rights" are not greater than everyone else. I don't understand this sentence and I didn't read anything like this either in this thread, sorry.


----------



## maxiogee

egueule said:


> Everyone has their own interpretation of love, I suppose.
> But Christ said:
> _But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, *do good to those who hate you*, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28)._
> Did reading this do you any good, Maxiogee? __



Not a lot!
It brought on more confusion. Is this the Christ who never seemed to bless the Scribes and Pharisees who hated him?





KaRiNe_Fr said:


> I understand egueule's point.
> And moreover, I think that being seen as a deviant (?) when you're not one could cause at least as much trauma as being harassed by a real one. (I'm not sure I'm clear...)


Are you suggesting that flashing and masturbating in public are not deviant behaviours?
Just how broad a range does your image of 'normal' behaviour cover?
I have never seen anyone masturbate in public, and have only once encountered a flasher - a sadly disturbed man in a sheltered hostel I worked in for a while many years ago. However, he knew that what he was doing was wrong and would roar with laughter when he got the desired reaction.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

> Are you suggesting that flashing and masturbating in public are not deviant behaviours?


My question mark was here because I didn't know if the word deviant was the right one for "déviant" in French! 
My point is: if there is a mistake (sending the wrong picture) or an intented  mistake (to be mean against someone you hate) the "trauma" for a fake deviant man viewing his portrait on this website --and the strange suspicious sights of his neighbors too! --, would be as much big as the trauma caused by the real harassment to the woman. Is it clear now?

 (I know I should not write here as each time my bad English makes me misunderstood. This is another proof... This time, I'd learnt my lesson!  )


----------



## heidita

LouisaB said:


> Yes, heidita, I think you are misunderstanding. My post was probably too brief to make itself clear, but this is _exactly_ the topic.


I am sorry, I did misunderstand. 

*



			should it be considered acceptable for a woman to slap a man who's harassing her, when reaction would be very different if a man slapped a woman for the same reason'?'
		
Click to expand...

*I did think about this when a man stated he was harassed by a woman in a disco, grabbing his testicles. I do think he has the same right, actually. I do not think anybody, woman or man, has the right to impose his or her will on the other. 



> then it would be hypocritical for those same women to insist that sexual harassment of a woman is worse then the same for a man, or for them to claim the right to slap while denying the same right to men.


I agree , it wouldn't be fair.



> I am quite capable of defending myself, and have done so many times, verbally, physically - and legally The last man who harassed me did so by phone and e-mail over a two year period, and has just spent three months in prison.


 
This is really what we should all do. And I might add, you were lucky that something came out of it. I also pressed charges, but this was three years ago...and I never heard of it again. 


> I felt a victim of the culture whereby women are no longer expected to be sensitive to such things. If a man masturbates in front of us, we are not expected to be shocked or distressed as our grandmothers might have been, we are expected to laugh. Sometimes you can't.


To my great surprise this is what eguleule is saying. We, the harassed ones, must think of_ the poor disturbed male_, and not be shocked or disgusted as nudity and masturbating in public should be considered normal.


> I am not 'turned on' by seeing partial male nudity in a public place, and I do not want to be sexually touched by strangers.


I don't want to be touched either. I can imagine the feeling of _utter pleasure _some women experience on the tube in Japan and (I think it was) Sao Paolo. Disgusting.


----------



## heidita

Nun-Translator said:


> ... He does this because he feels that the free expression of his sexuality demands it. The free expression of his sexuality also demands that one or more women watch him masturbate, and that these women be taken by surprise.


 
This is very important for them. As I mentioned in previous posts, I was actually MADE to look as the masturbation itself doesn't arouse them but the shock and the embarrassment they cause.



> (Otherwise he would just ask his wife or partner to share the sublime moments with him or hire a sex-industry worker to watch.)


 
Why does one not take this into account? if it were because of the masturbating fact itself, he would pay somebody for looking. 


> What do we call that when one person forces another to be his sexual partner, whether or not this involves intercourse? Sexual assault.


Exactly. There are still some who do not consider it assault unless intercourse is involved. Very surprising to me. In any case, both are difficult to prove.




> A truly liberal society does not allow some people to exercise "rights" at the expense of others. Period.


That's the bottom point. A harasser is inflicting his will on me and limiting my rights.




Luke Warm said:


> heidita,
> 
> I'm interested. 7 pages into this post, and having already told us of your your rather frightening experiences of harassment-- having a tooth knocked out etc.-- and having read all the debate on these pages, if (when) this happens to you again, will you react the same way as you did before?


I had to promise my husband not to hit back the next time, but I am afraid I might break this promise. He is afraid for my well-being. He claims that by hitting back I expose myself too much, which is of course true. Not a safe solution, as you have put it. 
But,as I told before, the police-man actually congratulated us, both my husband and me, for pressing charges. My husband for supporting me and not doubting for one moment that the harassment actually took place, and me for actually pressing charges, in spite of the difficulty of proving the act. He said, that the weirdo might be doing it in front of young girls, too , with more devastating effect and that there was a chance, though ever so little,  that by my reaction_ he just might think about doing it again_ ..
I don't know in other countries, but hereabouts men do not always believe their wives when talking about harassment. They think we are fantasizing.



KaRiNe_Fr said:


> Yes, no one have the right to "use" a sexual partner in whatever manner without his/her will. Maybe I should repeat it too as it seems not to be that obvious.
> Yes, anyone can react as he/she wants or as his/her character/religious beliefs leads him/her (I thought) in front of a sexual assault. Discussing, shouting, slapping, hitting... taking a picture... shooting, maybe?


Yes, going too far, all of us probably....



Nun-Translator said:


> We are not talking about a taboo against sex here, dear Karine, but about a taboo against forcing someone to do something against his or her will, in this case, observe a sexual act.


 
Thtat is my conviction and experience: harassment is about forcing somebody to so something against his/her will.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

heidita said:


> should it be considered acceptable for a woman to slap a man who's harassing her, when reaction would be very different if a man slapped a woman for the same reason'?'
> 
> 
> 
> I did think about this when a man stated he was harassed by a woman in a disco, grabbing his testicles. I do think he has the same right, actually. I do not think anybody, woman or man, has the right to impose his or her will on the other.
Click to expand...


This is an important point, actually: as I said before my only reaction was telling her to bugger off and I didn't think, even for a single second to slap her, but I don't know what I would have done If I had been a woman: I can't exclude though that my non violent reaction was due to the fact that, being a man, I wasn't actually scared, but only really pissed off...
If I had experienced that kind of harassment delivered by a hulking gay, I might have had a different reaction..


----------



## emma42

It is an important point, and I applaud paulfromitaly for being so honest about it.  Despite the fact that most of us live in a sexist society, a lot of men are brought up to believe that one should never hit a woman, no matter what the circumstances.  I don't think this is fair in all circumstances.

It is a fact that there is _usually_ a qualitative difference between, say, a man sexually assaulting a woman and vice versa.  Or, say, the reaction of a man hearing a woman walking behind him as he makes his way home in the dark, and vice versa. 

There is _usually _the belief in the man that he is not actually in any danger, certainly not of rape, and he will _usually_ not have been subjected to many assault from a woman in the past, and he will _usually _not have heard all sorts of horror stories from his mates about being assaulted by women.  

Men are expected to laugh off sexual assaults by women, expected to not defend themselves when hit by women, and are often not taken seriously if harrassed by a woman in the workplace.  

Sometimes, this is just not fair.  Sometimes, men do feel fear, intimidation, anxiety at such occurrences.  I think Paul would have had every right to slap the woman who assaulted him, but I completely understand why he didn't.


----------



## Cath.S.

> I felt a victim of the culture whereby women are no longer expected to be sensitive to such things. If a man masturbates in front of us, we are not expected to be shocked or distressed as our grandmothers might have been, we are expected to laugh. Sometimes you can't.


Fine, but please could you all refrain from telling those of us who do laugh they are wrong to do so and that being hurt and traumatised, feeling like a victim is healthier? 

I'll say it again, being overly sensitive to that sort of thing is not a virtue, just a weakness according to my own set of moral values - I'll suppose I'll be labelled hopelessly insensitive for saying that.

Heidita used the word _disgusting_ at some stage, and using that particular word illustrates my point.

Why should we be disgusted by another person's bodily functions? What is wrong with the body? What makes sex particularly offensive - apart from mainstream religion and the petty morals it gave birth to? How does it make you a lesser human being seeing a penis in action? 

Is the ear repulsive when it hears, is the eye loathsome when it sees? Is the stomach sickening when it digests?

Feel free to meditate my points, I won't be participating in this particular thread any longer, though.


----------



## heidita

egueule said:


> Heidita used the word _disgusting_ at some stage, and using that particular word illustrates my point.


 
I don't know if you read the post carefully enough. I didn't think his sexual organ was disgusting but his attitude, imposing his sexual desires, as you put it, on me. Really he is not imposing any kind of sexual desire on me, but his will, which is quite a different mater. And that's disgusting, yes, indeed.


> Why should we be disgusted by another person's bodily functions? What is wrong with the body? What makes sex particularly offensive - .......seeing a penis in action?


This thread is not about seeing a penis in public or naked bodies. 

Sex is not offensive or abusive in itself, it is though when it is imposed on another person, male or female. 
Quite recently I was reading a book about male rapes, a mother raping her son. I thought that that was a horrible thing to do, but it obviously exists. Just as bad, it is rape. I felt just a disgusted.
This is not about showing a penis in public but about power and the abuse of it.


----------



## ireney

Let me put it this way: I believe that
 a) flashers, should we ever go beyond the taboo od nudity and sex and all will simply find some other way to disturb and assault our piece of mind
b) harassers won't mind at all. It won't change anything for them really if we all go around stark naked and have sex wherever we want. They are not interested in sex but in imposing their will on you. So what if you go around absolutely naked? (in a quite hot country, in summer?) What if we don't mind if two consenting adults have sex in front of the rest of the world? That still won't mean that I want to have sex with anyone wanting to have sex with me. And harassers will still do what they do.

By the way there are quite a few sex-industry workers for all tastes. You can get one and touch his testicles or her boobs and do nothing else with him/her. You may, you touch. Fine by him/her if you explain that's what you want. Even the more pathetic, complex-ridden person can "hire" someone in this day and age to play  his/her part in this person's fantasy. But these people as I believe are not interested in volunteers.


----------



## emma42

Egueule, you have a point of view which you have explained well, and I have some sympathy with some of the things you have said, such as Christian morality having imposed itself on our view of sex and nudity.

I can also see where you are coming from with your views on sexual acts in public.  I disagree with those views, though.  I am with Heidita, that such an act as masturbating in public is forcing us to be part of something we do not wish to be a part of.  I think you are saying that we don't wish to be a part of something like that because of the influence of moralities such as the Christian one.  You might be right, but I don't think you are.  To me, sex is something special and loving, so special that I want to keep it private - between me and my man.  I don't want to see others indulging in sex acts.  For those who do, there are plenty of places they can go to!  I don't think that that view is part of Christian morality. I don't think it's all social conditioning.  I think it might be innate, but I can't swear to that because I don't know exactly how much I have been conditioned by my environment and history.

I also understand what you are saying about "victimhood".  But, Egueule, sometimes, does it really matter whether someone _should _be upset or not?  Isn't the fact that they _are_ upset enough reason (sometimes) to avoid doing something?  For example, I don't think people should be upset when I use the word "c**t", but I never used it in front of my grandma because I knew it would upset her.

Please don't feel that no one is listening to your point of view, because I, for one, am.


----------



## maliliana

It becomes very tricky switching the gender the other way around but my opinion is that any reaction to any kind of violence must be proportional to the original violent act which in fact is one of the fundaments of legitimate defense, so if a man or woman harrasses you your reaction musn't be more violent than the harrassment act itself, other ways we could stab someone that slapped us just because he/she did.


----------



## emma42

Yes, maliliana, but the problem is that when one is in such a situation it is not always possible to weigh everything up to make sure that one's reaction is proportionate.  Also, "proportionate", "reasonable" etc are subjective terms, which is why (I'm sure you know) there is so much case-law and so much legal argument about the terms.

Also, what is legal is not always what is right/morally acceptable, no?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

emma42 said:


> Yes, maliliana, but the problem is that when one is in such a situation it is not always possible to weigh everything up to make sure that one's reaction is proportionate.  Also, "proportionate", "reasonable" etc are subjective terms, which is why (I'm sure you know) there is so much case-law and so much legal argument about the terms.
> 
> Also, what is legal is not always what is right/morally acceptable, no?



Although a violent reaction may not be the best thing to do, as it's come out from this long thread, you ladies might find this videoclip useful:

how-to-deal-with-an-attacker


----------



## Lusitania

I agree with Heidita.
It's not the sexual kick that they get out of this. It's power related.

I had a problem in the Metro in Lisbon. I moved from line to line and to bus and man kept stalking me. I stoped at a inner police station at the Metro and talked to the police while the man starred at us. The police said that they couldn't do anything as he was free to walk in public places if he wouldn't do "anything". 
I went back to the metro and he came after me and touched my backside. I slaped him. What goes around comes around, right? wrong.
The police that had been watching came right away and on that same moment the man just fell on his knees and started to say "hit me!hit me! I'm a pig! I have no excuse!". I was in shock, couldn't believe it and especialy when the police came and said that I couldn't go around slaping people, although "people" could stalk me for about 2 hours. Well, I just replied that if he had enjoyed being slaped so the police wasn't necessary to intervene in such matter.

I just went my own way entered a university and waited for a friend to come and pick me up.

I wonder if he would have touched my backside if he hadn't seen that the police wouldn't do anything. He felt empowered. 

Maybe a smart answer or a smart strategy is much better than slaping... this one seems to enjoy it.


----------

