The difference between harrassment and compliments.

[Paprika]

I hope this doesn't turn into a postmodern question game: Inorder for something to qualify as sexual harrasment, in this case not comparable to persistent sexual harrasment,

Harassment is by definition persistent, systematic, or repeated. Nice try though.

its sufficient for it to be unwanted

I rest my case.

[Leonhard]

Harassment is by definition persistent, systematic, or repeated. Nice try though.

If that's how its defined, then I don't think I lose much by saying that its simple wrong. I presume you're not defending that its a right thing?

[Paprika]

If that's how its defined, then I don't think I lose much by saying that its simple wrong.

You need to consult a dictionary.

I presume you're not defending that its a right thing?

Of course not, but I must say that it was an fair attempt at a red herring: trying to pin Seer down on whether it was wrong when the issue was about harassment and how you, Leonhard, have shown us the bright clear line we have all missed!

[Leonhard]

Do you always read people in the very worst light? How about a little interpretive grace. I presume you meant that I was saying "If that's the definition, then I lose nothing by saying that the definition is wrong."

That's obviously wrong. I meant, though I can forgive you for missing it.

"If that's the definition you have, then I lose nothing by switching to a definition of it [the act of making sexual advances to women on the street] is a wrongful and abhorrent act."

Of course not, but I must say that it was an fair attempt at a red herring: trying to pin Seer down on whether it was wrong when the issue was about harassment and how you, Leonhard, have shown us the bright clear line we have all missed!

I'm confused with what you're saying here. I started this thread simple to point out differences between rightful and wrongful sexual advances. The prior thread had come to the consensus that saying 'hello' to a woman, did not by itself constitute an unwanted sexual advance. This was based on it being a commentary of video (which will not be discussed in this thread). However there were further questions about when actions like that crossed the line into being wrongful acts.

I don't believe this line is subjective, there is an objective wrong located in the act being that of lust, to seperate between when you're trying to compliment a woman to be kind to her, and when you're indulging in lust.

Then seer does something that I didn't understand, he questions why its wrong, while at the same time saying that he couldn't do it out of Christian ethics.

I don't ask mods to change titles of threads Paprika, so if I start out with a wrong definition of things, there's nothing wrong with admitting that. Nor can you be said to have made a very significant point, since the issue isn't whether or not its properly called harrasment, but what actions... comments... that are sexually implicit cross a line.

[Paprika]

Do you always read people in the very worst light?

Wow, that's reading me in a rather bad light. There there, be charitable.

"If that's the definition you have, then I lose nothing by switching to a definition of it [the act of making sexual advances to women on the street] is a wrongful and abhorrent act."

You lose the emotive force of 'harassment'; consequently the victim card is much harder to play and much less effective.

I don't ask mods to change titles of threads Paprika, so if I start out with a wrong definition of things, there's nothing wrong with admitting that. Nor can you be said to have made a very significant point, since the issue isn't whether or not its properly called harrasment, but what actions... comments... that are sexually implicit cross a line.

Excellent: you admit that complimenting a women's breasts is not necessarily harassment.

So now, tell us what line should not be crossed and why, and how such compliments necessarily cross that line?

[Leonhard]

Wow, that's reading me in a rather bad light. There there, be charitable.

I'll admit that I was slightly wrong in that come back then.

You lose the emotive force of 'harassment'; consequently the victim card is much harder to play and much less effective.

Yes, I'd have to agree that its no longer the wrong of harrassment, but that wouldn't change that it would be wrong. Emotive force or not.

Excellent: you admit that complimenting a women's breasts is not necessarily harassment.

I've said repeatedly that if you're married, you could do it. If not, what could possible not make an act of lust?

[Paprika]

I've said repeatedly that if you're married, you could do it. If not, what could possible not make an act of lust?

To make it clear: it is not harassment if it is not persistently or repeatedly done, by definition, and I'm glad you admit that.

As to whether a sexual advance outside the context of marriage is wrong: sure it is. Suppose a man compliments a woman on her breasts. It's wrong, by Christian morality, agreed. Now what?

[Leonhard]

Suppose a man compliments a woman on her breasts. It's wrong, by Christian morality, agreed. Now what?

The point of this thread wasn't to establish how we educate educate eachother or uphold a high moral standard. It was just to give a simple outline to discuss for what's wrong to do to women. Also I disagree that's wrong exclusively by Christian morality, in fact I think even people who aren't Christians can be made to see it. In principle I believe that they can realize that its wrong objectively (thought that's a different discussion).

Is there anything, other than what to call it (harrassment vs inappropriate), that you disagree with in the OP?

[Paprika]

The point of this thread wasn't to establish how we educate educate eachother or uphold a high moral standard. It was just to give a simple outline to discuss for what's wrong to do to women. Also I disagree that's wrong exclusively by Christian morality, in fact I think even people who aren't Christians can be made to see it. In principle I believe that they can realize that its wrong objectively (thought that's a different discussion).

Many who are not Christians think that having sex outside of marriage is not wrong; I am not convinced that they have a rational basis to condemn the acts of lust we have been discussing.

Is there anything, other than what to call it (harrassment vs inappropriate), that you disagree with in the OP?

The intended distinction was between harassment and compliment; later you corrected to lustful vs non-lustful (when not in the context of marriage), but it should be clear that complimenting someone on the hair, or on their beauty in general could be motivated by lust. Hence it makes no sense to imply as you did that you can draw a bright clear line where these acts fall into the 'acceptable' side.

[Leonhard]

Many who are not Christians think that having sex outside of marriage is not wrong; I am not convinced that they have a rational basis to condemn the acts of lust we have been discussing.

I agree that in general people outside of traditional theism, especially out of Christianity, will tend towards other positions. In principle though, I think its possible for them to objectively recognize that these things are wrong. Though that would take it into the issue of natural moral philosophy.

The intended distinction was between harassment and compliment; later you corrected to lustful vs non-lustful (when not in the context of marriage),

Granted, though I never said exclusively that lust was the issue. There is also the issue of whether or not its okay not to listen to women who tell us that these advances disturb them. There's also the issue of objectification; the women are approached for their assets and not for who they are.

but it should be clear that complimenting someone on the hair, or on their beauty in general could be motivated by lust.

Again, I don't disagree with that.

Hence it makes no sense to imply as you did that you can draw a bright clear line where these acts fall into the 'acceptable' side.

Hence the need for a discussion, because clearly (we both agree, and many non-Christians agree) there's a behavior that's not acceptable. I posted a simple guideline, asked for people's opinion. I'm not sure what position you're arguing for anymore, as I've conceded that according to the definition of harassment you gave, what I talked about isn't harassment.

Are you now arguing that its practically impossible to make kind of guidelines about how men ought or ought not talk to women in these ways?

Somehow I doubt you're going for a 'boys will be boys' approach.

[Paprika]

Granted, though I never said exclusively that lust was the issue. There is also the issue of whether or not its okay not to listen to women who tell us that these advances disturb them. There's also the issue of objectification; the women are approached for their assets and not for who they are.
...
Hence the need for a discussion, because clearly (we both agree, and many non-Christians agree) there's a behavior that's not acceptable. I posted a simple guideline, asked for people's opinion. I'm not sure what position you're arguing for anymore, as I've conceded that according to the definition of harassment you gave, what I talked about isn't harassment.

The point is that the guidelines you posted in the form of the picture fails to cohere with the later criteria: complimenting someone on their hair or general beauty can be acting on lust, disturbing women, or objectifying them.

Are you now arguing that its practically impossible to make kind of guidelines about how men ought or ought not talk to women in these ways?

All I've done is to critique your guidelines; I'm not sure how that implies that I believe no good guideline is possible.

[Leonhard]

The point is that the guidelines you posted in the form of the picture fails to cohere with the later criteria: complimenting someone on their hair or general beauty can be acting on lust, disturbing women, or objectifying them.

Thank you for giving a clarification. In the picture guideline you see a woman friendly complimenting on a fellow woman's hair. There's no sexual advance in this, and there's nothing that indicates lust in any meaningful way. If we imagine a woman sitting in an airport though, and a strange man she hasn't seen before scoots closer to her, or stands in front of her and tells her well she smells and how nice her hair is, would agree that this is bad behavior?

All I've done is to critique your guidelines; I'm not sure how that implies that I believe no good guideline is possible.

What suggestions do you have to it? I'm all ears. I never claimed that it was perfect.

[Adrift]

I think the definition of "harassment" you were originally working from was probably fine Leonhard. The US Equal Employment Opportunity website defines it as "unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.", And the website http://www.stopstreetharassment.org defines street harassment as, "any action or comment between strangers in public places that is disrespectful, unwelcome, threatening and/or harassing and is motivated by gender or sexual orientation or gender expression. In countries like India and Bangladesh, it’s termed “eve teasing,” and in countries like Egypt, it’s called “public sexual harassment.”

I think most people who read your thread title knew what you were saying.

[Leonhard]

I think most people who read your thread title knew what you were saying.

I'm willing to operate under Paprika's definition if that's what it takes to get him to talk about these things. I don't mind switching definitions around within reason. So far nobody else seems to be rushing to critique it, or help the discussion. :S

[Paprika]

I think the definition of "harassment" you were originally working from was probably fine Leonhard. The US Equal Employment Opportunity website defines it as "unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.", And the website http://www.stopstreetharassment.org defines street harassment as, "any action or comment between strangers in public places that is disrespectful, unwelcome, threatening and/or harassing and is motivated by gender or sexual orientation or gender expression. In countries like India and Bangladesh, it’s termed “eve teasing,” and in countries like Egypt, it’s called “public sexual harassment.”

I think most people who read your thread title knew what you were saying.