The difference between harrassment and compliments.

[Paprika]

I'm willing to operate under Paprika's definition

Did you peruse the dictionary, as I suggested?

[Paprika]

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?

Bad by what standards? I can imagine that in some cultures complementing a female stranger on her hair and perfume would be acceptable while in others it would not.

[Leonhard]

Did you peruse the dictionary, as I suggested?

What now?

[Leonhard]

Bad by what standards? I can imagine that in some cultures complementing a female stranger on her hair and perfume would be acceptable while in others it would not.

Do you have anything to add, or do you not?

So far I'm surprised that on a Christian forum, when I post something about what is proper male conduct in society I only get criticism of it. The only one who seems to agree Spartacus who's a fellow Catholic, and an atheist.

[Raphael]

Ok, what exactly is the difference between say you have nice hair or nice breasts? I mean they are both body parts.

please tell me you're being sarcastic Seer.

[Paprika]

What now?

You seem to be labouring under the assumption that 'harassment' being persistent or repeated is something I have cooked up.

[Paprika]

Do you have anything to add, or do you not?

You asked me if I thought something was bad, and I replied trying to clarify 'bad'. Ball's in your court.

So far I'm surprised that on a Christian forum, when I post something about what is proper male conduct in society I only get criticism of it. The only one who seems to agree Spartacus who's a fellow Catholic, and an atheist.

I wonder: is that an indictment of the Christian posters here, or of the content of your posts?

[Leonhard]

You seem to be labouring under the assumption that 'harassment' being persistent or repeated is something I have cooked up.

This isn't productive, I've already granted you your definition out of charity. If you want to continue on this issue, you may open another thread. I'm really not all that interesting in debating this any further as it isn't really all that important to the discussion of proper male behavior and sexually implicit statements made against women.

This will be the last post to you I'll do about that issue.

[Adrift]

Do you have anything to add, or do you not?

So far I'm surprised that on a Christian forum, when I post something about what is proper male conduct in society I only get criticism of it. The only one who seems to agree Spartacus who's a fellow Catholic, and an atheist.

What's the context of the discussion here? The illustration in your OP looked spot on.

[Zymologist]

Do you have anything to add, or do you not?

So far I'm surprised that on a Christian forum, when I post something about what is proper male conduct in society I only get criticism of it. The only one who seems to agree Spartacus who's a fellow Catholic, and an atheist.

When I first read this, I took it as, "Spartacus, who's a fellow Catholic and an atheist." I was confused for a minute.

[Adrift]

please tell me you're being sarcastic Seer.

I gotta think that he is. I'm thinking its some sort of argumentum ad absurdum or something, but I don't know the context.

[Leonhard]

You asked me if I thought something was bad, and I replied trying to clarify 'bad'. Ball's in your court.

Very well, bad by objective standards of natural morality. You're the one who's questioning the example so you should explain what's further wrong with it. You offer up a mysterious country where that counts as a sexual advance, but what would you prove with that? Even granting that such a country exists where a woman commenting friendly on another woman's country is considered her implicitly making a lustful move, that's clearly not (outside of edge cases) what typically happens here.

[Leonhard]

When I first read this, I took it as, "Spartacus, who's a fellow Catholic and an atheist." I was confused for a minute.

I meant that Adrift is the atheist, which is wrong, sorry Adrift!!!

[Adrift]

I meant that Adrift is the atheist, which is wrong, sorry Adrift!!!

Its okay. The cookies weren't as good as they made them out to be.

[Paprika]

Very well, bad by objective standards of natural morality.

Natural Law? That's not within my belief system.

You're the one who's questioning the example so you should explain what's further wrong with it.

I'll repeat my critique of the picture: 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.

Or do you propose that all compliments on a stranger's hair, say, is necessarily not an action on lust?

You offer up a mysterious country where that counts as a sexual advance, but what would you prove with that? Even granting that such a country exists where a woman commenting friendly on another woman's country is considered her implicitly making a lustful move, that's clearly not (outside of edge cases) what typically happens here.

You might want to correct your post.