Dressing like a slut

Since the the thread started out with the slutwalks and everyone pretty much agrees that rape is bad and the thread is now diverging into nitpicky hypothetical scenarios, let's take a look at a closer issue to the opening post: street harassment.

http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/about/what-is-street-harassment/

Seeing the broad category that can constitute street harassment, how is a dude or a dudette supposed to express attraction, while not desiring to intimidate the other? The site's main issue is objectification of people, yet the response to someone expressing attraction in any manner is also heavily based on objectification. Thus this becomes something of a double bind: one needs to gauge the reaction of the other party before taking an action, which in turn is based on objectification of the self, whether self-deprecating or narcissistic.

In simpler words: based on the standards set out by the above-mentioned site, how does one flirt in an appropriate manner? Since this is inherently subjective, what range is acceptable in expressing attraction based on appearance in the given context, given the risk of intimidating the other party? And finally, what do about the fact that such objectification runs both ways(say, whether my response to a dudette pinching me in the butt is mild befuddlement to outright revulsion is based heavily on her appearance too)?

Feel free to split this off to a seperate thread if it warrants a discussion of its own.

I know what you said, sugar, but 'platonic' still entails a world of ideas.

Commenting on someone's looks is not harassment just like saying that someone is a dick is not harassment. Flirting is also not harassment and if the girl doesn't want the guys to flirt with her she can just tell them to fuck off, ignore them or dress modestly. And yes, girls can also be vulgar towards the guys the find attractive (or the opposite of attractive). Not everything is rape or abuse.

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

It's not equatable to rape, of course, but it does involve the same disregarding-the-other-person's-personal-boundaries mentality.

I know what you said, sugar, but 'platonic' still entails a world of ideas.

Just respond with the same amount of assholeness. Seriously we're getting too concerned on the little things

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

@IA: How do you flirt with a stranger across the street? You don't.

How do you flirt, period? Same way you always flirt: walk up and start a conversation.

---

@nzm: There's that "not everything is X" construction again!

Nobody's claiming that everything is rape!

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

...Well, going by the things that site listed under "types" of harassment, if you are just flirting with someone you shouldn't have a problem. What this site is calling out is the whole drunken stranger yelling "SHOW US YER TITS!" issue, as well as things like groping and invasion of personal space.

Which is a very different thing to flirting or chat up lines or whatever.

The main lines I'd draw, beyond the obvious, is that if someone indicates lack of interest, you move on, and no touching unless you have permission (which includes letting someone go if they pull away).

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.

@ BH's post: The second is really an extension of the latter: exchanging looks, judging body language of the other in response, then possibly moving on to a greeting and a conversation. The definition of street harassment as positied on the site also qualifies rubbernecking and forced conversations as unwanted behaviour.

And again, most chat-up lines fall within the spectrum of 'trying to get sex out of someone'.

edited 12th Jun '11 6:36:39 AM by InsanityAddict

I know what you said, sugar, but 'platonic' still entails a world of ideas.

"Commenting on someone's looks is not harassment just like saying that someone is a dick is not harassment."

That's context-dependent.

Enjoy the Inferno...

More like frequency dependent. You won't get psychologically damaged if someone calls you a dick once

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

^Which prompts another point: you have no way to know how the person in question will react. If one would use any of the women from the site's stories as an example, chances are that they will see even relatively innocent attempts at sparking a conversation by a male stranger as slightly unnerving.

I know what you said, sugar, but 'platonic' still entails a world of ideas.

Someone's oversensitivity is this person's own problem. People can get offended by anything but it doesn't mean that the thing they overreact to is offensive.

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

Well amongst Vitriolic Best Buds, prolific insults are usually laughed off. A total stranger slagging you off, on the other hand...

edited 12th Jun '11 6:42:18 AM by MRDA1981

Enjoy the Inferno...

Egg-shell skull, anyone?

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

The problem is various forms of the phrase 'oversensitivity' are used to sweep complaints of genuine sexual harassment under the rug. Of course, there is very little consensus on what constitutes oversensitivity, but that's what discussing it is for.

edited 12th Jun '11 6:45:20 AM by InsanityAddict

I know what you said, sugar, but 'platonic' still entails a world of ideas.

Let's have some psychologists evaluate what behaviours are detrimental to standard 'victim's' mental stability and thus we'll have a standard for what is dangerous. Of course there will be various deviations from the norm but still, skilled psychologist will be able to tell the difference from genuine fear from slight discomfort presented as something more

edited 12th Jun '11 6:59:52 AM by nzm1536

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

As a general rule, courts prefer to avoid relying on psychologist's evidence. In criminal cases in the UK and Ireland, they're usually only really admissible in insanity cases. The courts prefer to rely on the evidence of the case as it stands and not bring in additional professionals in a field where a variety of theories abound.

As far as sensitivity goes, the "egg-shell skull" rule states that a person must take the victim as they find them. Whether this includes a psychological disposition towards sensitivity is an ongoing debate, though in the past it has been held to include paranoia.

Just to offer a different perspective.

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

By aiming a bit lower and checking out something else that may stick out.

"That said, as I've mentioned before, apart from the helmet, he's not exactly bad looking, if a bit...blood-drenched." - juancarlos

Their toes? Seriously though, the issue does go both ways. There was a girl in school who was quite aggressive (I was rather shy at the time) and groped my ass a bit because she knew it really embarrassed me. It was pretty mortifying.

edited 12th Jun '11 7:48:48 AM by DanEile

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

Not to be too insensitive, but how do you know that was why? A lot of girls seem convinced that guys would enjoy that kind of thing; on other forums I go to, I see girls claiming that when a guy says no he means yes. (Not that even THAT would be a justification, just using that as an example.)

Hell, I was pretty shy in high school myself, and would probably have been a bit embarrassed if groped by a girl, but I doubt I would assume that much about her intentions.

edited 12th Jun '11 9:15:25 AM by neoYTPism

Because, with all due respect to the girl, she was pretty vindictive. She was one of those stereotypical bitches. I mean, really, any chance she could get to put me down she took.

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

"with all due respect to the girl"

That'd be none whatsoever, then...

Enjoy the Inferno...

"Saying "Oh in the heat of the moment you can't stop" is only relevent if the participants are either bladdered or in some altered state of mind. And if only one of them is then you shouldn't be having sex in the first place."

Shouldn't? What's shouldn't got to do with it? It happens, it happens a hell of a lot, and we can't paint it with the same legislative brush as, let's say, gang rape or date rape or police rape or any other situation in which the man set out precisely to violate the woman whether to punish her, humiliate her, or simply get off on the act.

And I believe mid-coitus is an altered state of mind anyhow. Once again, don't interpret my words to mean that we should let the guy off scott free and with a pat on his back. It just means that preying on a woman and subsequently violating her sexually is not the same as having consensual foreplay and than lacking the presence of mind and the willpower to disregard your own desires in favor of hers.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Hey now, we're pretty OK with each other, nowadays (admittedly not having seen her in two years helps). I'm just saying... Girl could be pretty mean back then.

edited 12th Jun '11 9:34:11 AM by DanEile

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

If were working solely in practicalities then I would leave it up to the legal system to decide things, rather than random people on the internet with no specifics of the hypothetical "case".

Erm, at Kas, sorry dude.

edited 12th Jun '11 9:40:46 AM by JosefBugman

Wait, who's that directed at? This conversation gotten a bit varied.

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."