Is the line between "courtship" and harassment really that blurry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://mic.com/articles/135394/14-women-were-brutally-attacked-for-rejecting-men-why-arent-we-talking-about-it#.Ioj5NVzMX

Stop pretending you don't know why women give polite answers to unwanted male attention. As noted earlier in the thread, you and men like you are shitbirds who do know where the line is, but habitually step across it to feel powerful. Playacting confused isn't convincing.

Oh good, now we're getting to the part where you call me names. At least you're communicating clearly for once. See if you can intuit what I think about you ...

I'm a different poster, brain trust. Keep dodging the actual arguments people are putting forth so that you can feel wronged when you get hauled in front of HR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men try to chat up cute women, duh. And if you're offended by "Hi", you need to put yourself someplace where that doesn't happen. "Hi" is not sexual harassment .

there you have it, folks. attractive young women have no right to be in public unless they are willing to be constantly hit on.

Saying "hi" to a stranger is equivalent to hitting on and harassing that person? If that's true, then I've probably "hit on" 10 different men and women today, starting with a 65 year old man in my neighborhood who was walking his dogs while I was on the way to work. You might need to recalibrate your measuring stick.

Again mutual eye contact + mutual hi / greetings= okay

Interrupting someone to say hi to inflate your own self worth = not okay

Why is this so hard?

What does this even mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main problem may be that you look at a woman and think "cute girl" or "cute chick" in a coffee shop, while she regards herself as "an accountant attempting to finish a client file" or "a lawyer with a deadline." The fact that the person working at the coffee shop is female doesn't make it okay to interrupt her while she is working. You wouldn't interrupt Bob. Don't interrupt Sheila.

Umm, we would interrupt Bob if we were trying to date Bob.

So every woman in public is fodder for your need to date frenzy?

Before the Internet, that's how you met women, at least outside your church, so yes.

The internet has been around 30 years. Time to upgrade your tactics. Or do you still advertise in the newspaper?

Whatever works, and Match doesn't always do the job. What is your point? My point was that strangers meet somehow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you really don't want to be asked out, then why wouldn't you say "No, I'm not interested in anything romantic with you"? No absolutely means no, but "sure sounds like fun, maybe some other time" doesn't always mean no.

Because when a woman says what you suggested, she is perceived as either a bitch or an arrogant ass to have assumed that you were asking in a romantic way. See coffe shop convo amd marital rape. Historically, we have not been allowed to say No in the way you describe. You should read some Deborah Tannen - women's ways of speaking are equally valid. Learn to listen to what we are saying.

No, you need to learn to communicate. What rule says you're "not allowed" to say no? You're saying you're unhappy that your soft deferral ("sounds great, maybe some other time") is not being perceived as a firm "no, not interested", and you're angry that you keep getting asked out even after the soft deferral. You can stop the situation by simply giving a firm "no, not interested", but you nevertheless choose the soft deferral. Why? You know full well that if you give a soft deferral, the man will potentially perceive that as leaving the door open. So why do you choose to leave the door open? Why not simply close it?

Why don't you develop the social skills to understand the meaning she's actually communicating, which everyone else but you understands?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://mic.com/articles/135394/14-women-were-brutally-attacked-for-rejecting-men-why-arent-we-talking-about-it#.Ioj5NVzMX

Stop pretending you don't know why women give polite answers to unwanted male attention. As noted earlier in the thread, you and men like you are shitbirds who do know where the line is, but habitually step across it to feel powerful. Playacting confused isn't convincing.

Oh good, now we're getting to the part where you call me names. At least you're communicating clearly for once. See if you can intuit what I think about you ...

I'm a different poster, brain trust. Keep dodging the actual arguments people are putting forth so that you can feel wronged when you get hauled in front of HR.

Maybe if you could communicate this clearly in real life, you'd have fewer problems. OTOH, you do seem to have anger problems, so maybe you're better off keeping your inner voice inside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://mic.com/articles/135394/14-women-were-brutally-attacked-for-rejecting-men-why-arent-we-talking-about-it#.Ioj5NVzMX

Stop pretending you don't know why women give polite answers to unwanted male attention. As noted earlier in the thread, you and men like you are shitbirds who do know where the line is, but habitually step across it to feel powerful. Playacting confused isn't convincing.

Oh good, now we're getting to the part where you call me names. At least you're communicating clearly for once. See if you can intuit what I think about you ...

I'm a different poster, brain trust. Keep dodging the actual arguments people are putting forth so that you can feel wronged when you get hauled in front of HR.

Maybe if you could communicate this clearly in real life, you'd have fewer problems. OTOH, you do seem to have anger problems, so maybe you're better off keeping your inner voice inside.

Childish misdirection. But it's good to see people like you are running scared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty clear to me what's harassment and what isn't. Using your authority at work or your hiring power to try and gain sexual favors is harassment.

So a lawyer asks a paralegal at the same firm to go out for drinks. Makes suggestive comments about going out and having fun. Paralegal declines, saying it sounds like fun but has other plans this weekend, maybe some other time. Lawyer asks again the next week, and gets similar response. Pattern repeats several times over the course of a few months. Paralegal does not work directly for lawyer, but is at same firm. Is this sexual harassment?

Repeatedly asking a coworker out, after she's made it clear that she isn't interested, is generally regarded as harassment.

Are you saying that’s clear harassment, or just “generally considered” which is a little more ambiguous phrasing? Could not tell from your response.

Also, in my scenario, the paralegal did not say “not interested”, but rather said sounds like fun, not now, maybe some other time. Is your answer still so clear?

Dude, get a clue. She's giving the lawyer a soft no. If she wanted to see him outside of work, she would figure out a way to do it. Are you really that stupid? If so, you shouldn't be lawyering.

Same answer when it's a 27 year old female lawyer inviting out a 25 year old male paralegal? Is it harassment the first time she asks him out? Or just the second time?

It's likely not harassment by the legal definition. But it's rude and invasive after the second time. And most people with social skills would be able to assess whether the person was truly interested, or brushing them off, after the first invite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main problem may be that you look at a woman and think "cute girl" or "cute chick" in a coffee shop, while she regards herself as "an accountant attempting to finish a client file" or "a lawyer with a deadline." The fact that the person working at the coffee shop is female doesn't make it okay to interrupt her while she is working. You wouldn't interrupt Bob. Don't interrupt Sheila.

Umm, we would interrupt Bob if we were trying to date Bob.

So every woman in public is fodder for your need to date frenzy?

Before the Internet, that's how you met women, at least outside your church, so yes.

The internet has been around 30 years. Time to upgrade your tactics. Or do you still advertise in the newspaper?

Whatever works, and Match doesn't always do the job. What is your point? My point was that strangers meet somehow.

Yes, strangers may meet. I feel sorry for you if you can't tell the difference between an actual spontaneous conversation of mutual interest, and bugging the "cute chick" in the coffee shop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you really don't want to be asked out, then why wouldn't you say "No, I'm not interested in anything romantic with you"? No absolutely means no, but "sure sounds like fun, maybe some other time" doesn't always mean no.

Because when a woman says what you suggested, she is perceived as either a bitch or an arrogant ass to have assumed that you were asking in a romantic way. See coffe shop convo amd marital rape. Historically, we have not been allowed to say No in the way you describe. You should read some Deborah Tannen - women's ways of speaking are equally valid. Learn to listen to what we are saying.

No, you need to learn to communicate. What rule says you're "not allowed" to say no? You're saying you're unhappy that your soft deferral ("sounds great, maybe some other time") is not being perceived as a firm "no, not interested", and you're angry that you keep getting asked out even after the soft deferral. You can stop the situation by simply giving a firm "no, not interested", but you nevertheless choose the soft deferral. Why? You know full well that if you give a soft deferral, the man will potentially perceive that as leaving the door open. So why do you choose to leave the door open? Why not simply close it?

Why don't you develop the social skills to understand the meaning she's actually communicating, which everyone else but you understands?

I'm not the one who's getting agitated whenever someone says hi to me in a coffee shop or asks me to go out for drinks after work. I am perfectly capable of saying "no thanks" or "yes sure", and then going about my day. People seem to understand me just fine.

If you are unhappy that people aren't understanding you, then you should communicate more directly ... not whine on an anonymous message board in hopes that everyone else in the world will suddenly start to hear you differently. I'm not sure how you expect the whining route to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you really don't want to be asked out, then why wouldn't you say "No, I'm not interested in anything romantic with you"? No absolutely means no, but "sure sounds like fun, maybe some other time" doesn't always mean no.

Because when a woman says what you suggested, she is perceived as either a bitch or an arrogant ass to have assumed that you were asking in a romantic way. See coffe shop convo amd marital rape. Historically, we have not been allowed to say No in the way you describe. You should read some Deborah Tannen - women's ways of speaking are equally valid. Learn to listen to what we are saying.

No, you need to learn to communicate. What rule says you're "not allowed" to say no? You're saying you're unhappy that your soft deferral ("sounds great, maybe some other time") is not being perceived as a firm "no, not interested", and you're angry that you keep getting asked out even after the soft deferral. You can stop the situation by simply giving a firm "no, not interested", but you nevertheless choose the soft deferral. Why? You know full well that if you give a soft deferral, the man will potentially perceive that as leaving the door open. So why do you choose to leave the door open? Why not simply close it?

Why don't you develop the social skills to understand the meaning she's actually communicating, which everyone else but you understands?

I'm not the one who's getting agitated whenever someone says hi to me in a coffee shop or asks me to go out for drinks after work. I am perfectly capable of saying "no thanks" or "yes sure", and then going about my day. People seem to understand me just fine.

If you are unhappy that people aren't understanding you, then you should communicate more directly ... not whine on an anonymous message board in hopes that everyone else in the world will suddenly start to hear you differently. I'm not sure how you expect the whining route to work.

Yeah, the "cute chick" is not getting agitated either. Likely she has the social skills and experience to be able to blow you off without getting you mad, and she has been through this a lot, so while she's annoyed, she's not agitated in the moment. (I'm assuming you're not actually hostile towards or or literally refusing to leave her alone.) And you've never been that "cute chick" who doesn't have the freedom to just sit anonymously in a cafe, so you have no idea, really. You are the one who's got the communication impairment, not women, I can tell you that.

[Anonymous]

So PP Who thinks it’s okay To approach the cute chick in the coffee shop, how to you feel about telemarketers, MLMs on your social media feeds, and door to door sales? Invasive or no?

[Anonymous]

Yes, strangers may meet. I feel sorry for you if you can't tell the difference between an actual spontaneous conversation of mutual interest, and bugging the "cute chick" in the coffee shop.

I might not be up to speed on everything about meetin' wimmin, but I think you're fibbing about feelin' sympathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same answer when it's a 27 year old female lawyer inviting out a 25 year old male paralegal? Is it harassment the first time she asks him out? Or just the second time?

It's likely not harassment by the legal definition. But it's rude and invasive after the second time. And most people with social skills would be able to assess whether the person was truly interested, or brushing them off, after the first invite.

See, this is where it gets frustrating for men reading here. When people were assuming the scenario was an older male lawyer asking out a young female paralegal, most were ready to pillory him immediately. But when it's a female lawyer, and they're both roughly the same age, the response changes. Now this PP is making clear it's not actually harassment. And it's only rude and invasive after the second time (so the third time she asks him out??).

My point is not to defend pigs like Bill O'Reilly or Matt Lauer, or any other woman or man who abuses her power to coerce relationships. I'm just saying that it paints with too broad and unrealistic a brush to insist that the difference between courtship and harassment is obvious. In the real world, it's not obvious at all. Signals get crossed; people are not clear about their intentions. People also want attention from some, and not from others. If a person I consider attractive strikes up a conversation while I'm reading at a coffee shop, I'm going to be flattered. But if a person I consider annoying strikes up a conversation, I'm irritated. It's not about the interruption or about the location, but rather about my changing interest.

[Anonymous]

To the obtuse poster.

It costs you nothing to either 1. Listen to what many of us are trying to tell you, or 2. Just come out and say what you’re really getting at.

Either
1. “Yes, it does seem pretty obvious where the line is. Thanks for pointing out a few situations I’d never thought of before. I care about making people comfortable, especially when I’m trying to meet women.”
Or.
2. You all are bulls***. I specifically have the right to go around and lightly harass women.

Costs you nothing. It’s anonymous. Why pretend like you’re just not getting it?!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same answer when it's a 27 year old female lawyer inviting out a 25 year old male paralegal? Is it harassment the first time she asks him out? Or just the second time?

It's likely not harassment by the legal definition. But it's rude and invasive after the second time. And most people with social skills would be able to assess whether the person was truly interested, or brushing them off, after the first invite.

See, this is where it gets frustrating for men reading here. When people were assuming the scenario was an older male lawyer asking out a young female paralegal, most were ready to pillory him immediately. But when it's a female lawyer, and they're both roughly the same age, the response changes. Now this PP is making clear it's not actually harassment. And it's only rude and invasive after the second time (so the third time she asks him out??).

My point is not to defend pigs like Bill O'Reilly or Matt Lauer, or any other woman or man who abuses her power to coerce relationships. I'm just saying that it paints with too broad and unrealistic a brush to insist that the difference between courtship and harassment is obvious. In the real world, it's not obvious at all. Signals get crossed; people are not clear about their intentions. People also want attention from some, and not from others. If a person I consider attractive strikes up a conversation while I'm reading at a coffee shop, I'm going to be flattered. But if a person I consider annoying strikes up a conversation, I'm irritated. It's not about the interruption or about the location, but rather about my changing interest.

to clarify - I don't think the scenario where a lawyer asks out a paralegal repeatedly is legal sexual harassment, regardless of genders. At a certain point it could become that -- if the lawyer starts to act angrily towards the paralegal, for example, and impact his/her job. but asking 4-5 times and being turned down is likely not a harassment case. that said, it is a bad idea and could (should) earn the lawyer a reprimand from HR, because after the 2nd or 3rd time, it was clearly unwanted.

as for intent -- that's the WHOLE POINT. Yes, you need to develop the social skills to determine whether your contact is wanted or not. Asking once or twice and getting a soft turn down, or a quick hi: ok. After that, the onus really is on you to figure it out if it's wanted or appropriate. Women have the right to chose who they want to speak to or date.