The difference between harrassment and compliments.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Paprika]

What now?

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

[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.

[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.

[Leonhard]

Did you peruse the dictionary, as I suggested?

What now?

[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.

[Paprika]

I'm willing to operate under Paprika's definition

Did you peruse the dictionary, as I suggested?

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[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]

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.