The difference between harrassment and compliments.

[Epoetker]

preview1.jpg

Women would totally never do this to get attention from guys they like, and this photo is totally not available as a framed picture at home decor stores, and the American girl in the photo totally didn't go and marry an Italian guy.

The punchline in the Shoshanna street harassment video was that most of the harrassers looked less like the guys in the photos and more like Emmit Till.

[myth]

Since I've always placed the phrases into contexts, this isn't really correct. And since I have never disagreed with Paprika that someone can use the sentence 'You have nice breasts' appropriately, how can you really claim this?

I don't feel that the contexts have been explained in enough detail.

Specifically I was making some recommendations as to what is good behavior and what is bad behavior, because it seemed to me that some American Christians were starting to defend lewd talking to women as natural and good.

Aside from one or two errant comments (which may or may not have been sarcastic, I really don't know), I haven't seen American Christians on here defending lewd behavior. What I have seen them doing is arguing with people who are trying to define lewd behavior with arbitrary guidelines that don't make any sense. For instance, I argued with Sam until he (or she?) presented a more cogent argument that made sense to me. Then I acknowledged the argument made sense, and that I agreed with the content.

At what point was I trying to make a technical formal argument? The OP was a helpful comic, only later when Paprika started arguing definitions did we get some sort of argument.

I don't care if it's a 'technical formal argument' or not. A bad argument is a bad argument, and a poor presentation of your thoughts still leads to confusion and blowback from the audience. I'm just saying, if your posts don't make sense to the audience here, expect blowback -- whether or not we agree with your sentiments. Some people here just like a good argument.

Finally? Did it take long?

Maybe not, I guess I'm viewing this thread as a continuation of the arguments in the other thread.

I never said that its wrong solely because its lustful, I've pointed out other reasons as well.

I understood your argument to be that it can be wrong based solely on the lust component, but that it can also be wrong for other reasons as well.

Did you go over to her and say "Hey, you've got really nice breasts!" And was that the first and only thing you said to her that day?

No. See my above comment.

Lust isn't the same as sexual attraction, I think we'll both agree on that, but since this distinction can be made it doesn't mean that going around and going "Hey babe, nice rack." "Nice butt sweetie." "Hello there beautiful. *with raised suggestive eyebrows*" etc... ad nauseum...

True, lust is not the same as sexual attraction. But I didn't see any signs earlier that you were bothering to make that distinction. It sounded like you were arguing that if you approached a woman because you were sexually attracted to her, then whatever you said to her was wrong because of your feelings towards her. Obviously I think that line of thought is a bunch of malarkey.

I may have been merging your comments in this thread with Psychic Missile or square peg's comments in the other. Ya'll seem to be mostly in agreement with each other, so I'm sorry if I have attributed their statements to you.

It was simple meant to continue something I thought was an interesting question in the former thread. That thread was solely satisfied with discussing whether its wrong for a man to say 'hello' to a girl. Obviously that's most likely not wrong (and lets not reopen that discussion). However the discussion was left at that, and I wasn't sure what people thought about other behaviors. Instead of writing a long, boring post that nobody would read, I wrote a comic.

You actually made that comic? That's cool. For the record though...what if the woman making the compliment about the hair was a lesbian? I just think there are many factors involved with these scenarios and if we're trying to sort every interaction into a specific set of categories, we'll need to be far more careful with our words than we have been so far.

Hopefully seer was being sarcastic, otherwise there is a problem of how men talk to women in Christian communities that's worth talking about.

I think he was just playing Devil's Advocate, but he'll have to speak for himself on that one.

[Adrift]

I suggest reading my posts carefully, instead of attempting to project disorders.

The line drawn in the picture does demarcate some behavior but is itself unclear as a demarcation of all behavior. In addition, the line drawn is, as I far as I can tell, not the line Leonhard would himself draw between good and bad behaviour; for him whether a verbal interaction would be right depends greatly on the intention and not just on outward appearance.

I am reading your posts carefully, and I wasn't attempting to project a disorder, though I do think its true to say that those who suffer some form of, say, autism, may indeed have a problem discerning behavior in some social interactions.

I agree that Leonhard's illustration does not demonstrate a clear demarcation for all behavior. I don't think that was his intention. I got the gist, and I'm sure most other readers did as well.

[Paprika]

I think for most people (outside of maybe those who suffer from some sort of neurological disorder) the illustration is very easy to read. Are you sincerely having a hard time discerning the line of demarcation within the panels, and the strip as a whole?

I suggest reading my posts carefully, instead of attempting to project disorders.

The line drawn in the picture does demarcate some interaction but is itself unclear as a demarcation of all interactions. In addition, the line drawn is, as I far as I can tell, not the line Leonhard would himself draw between good and bad behaviour; for him whether a verbal interaction would be wrong depends greatly on the intention and not just on outward appearance.

[Mountain Man]

Is the line how the woman responds?

"Hey, that's a cute drawing."
"Why? Because I'm female? You couldn't say, 'You have a great eye for light and shadow.' No, you had to be sexist and say my drawing was 'cute'."

"You have lovely hair."
"Because women care so much about their hair. I bet you think I woke up early just to wash and brush it. Sexist pig."

"Hey, baby, nice • Edited by a Moderator •
"That's so sweet! You just made my day!"

What's a compliment and what's harassment?

[Adrift]

So how precisely does your picture make it "easy" (presumably) to see exactly where the line* is?

*The line between harassment/compliment, lust/non-lust, objectification/no-objectification or whatever future criteria you plan to use

I think for most people (outside of maybe those who suffer from some sort of neurological disorder) the illustration is very easy to read. Are you sincerely having a hard time discerning the line of demarcation within the panels, and the strip as a whole?

[Adrift]

Hence your picture does not demarcate in any "clear" way what is good and what is not.

Seemed pretty clear to me.

I'm honestly surprised there's even any debate about this subject. Figured it was all common sense.

[Paprika]

I repost for you what I wrote in the OP.

"An interesting question in another thread was what exactly constituted the line between when men go over the line with women. Some people indicate that men just can't help it, and so should be excused almost no matter what they do (short of rape and grabbing), which is nonsense as men aren't animals. Others go in the opposite direction and say that even the mere saying 'hello' in a non-suggestive way is harassment.

Lets make it easy."

*I posted the picture*

A woman in that picture comments on a friends/customers hair, surely there's a clear difference between that, and a man approaching a woman on the street and going "Hey doll, nice hair!"

So how precisely does your picture make it "easy" (presumably) to see exactly where the line* is?

*The line between harassment/compliment, lust/non-lust, objectification/no-objectification or whatever future criteria you plan to use

[Zymologist]

We have seer on this thread already giving indications of it, from this forum its more of a suspicion. From private conversations I know of several situations in which women in Christian circles are made to feel highly uncomfortable by mens advances, even from married men.

I can see the confusion with seer, I just haven't seen anyone actually defend lewd speech (even seer said that it would be unethical).

I feel like there's a lot of misunderstanding on this whole topic, and none of us actually disagree all that much. Men should treat women properly, and not say inappropriate stuff. A lot of men say inappropriate* stuff, and that's wrong.

*Does anyone else find this word weirdly hard to type? I have to really think about it to get it right for some reason.

[Leonhard]

Hence your picture does not demarcate in any "clear" way what is good and what is not.

I repost for you what I wrote in the OP.

"An interesting question in another thread was what exactly constituted the line between when men go over the line with women. Some people indicate that men just can't help it, and so should be excused almost no matter what they do (short of rape and grabbing), which is nonsense as men aren't animals. Others go in the opposite direction and say that even the mere saying 'hello' in a non-suggestive way is harassment.

Lets make it easy."

*I posted the picture*

A woman in that picture comments on a friends/customers hair, surely there's a clear difference between that, and a man approaching a woman on the street and going "Hey doll, nice hair!"

[Paprika]

Haven't I already outlined one situation where a comment like that can be used in such a way? It's very easy to draw up a situation where saying things like that sexually involved in a way that's unwelcome and unmanly.

Hence your picture does not demarcate in any "clear" way what is good and what is not.

[Leonhard]

Did this happen on Tweb, or are you referring to something else?

We have seer on this thread already giving indications of it, from this forum its more of a suspicion. From private conversations I know of several situations in which women in Christian circles are made to feel highly uncomfortable by mens advances, even from married men.

[Leonhard]

Can complimenting someone on their hair or general beauty be acting on lust, disturbing women, or objectifying them?

Haven't I already outlined one situation where a comment like that can be used in such a way? It's very easy to draw up a situation where saying things like that sexually involved in a way that's unwelcome and unmanly.

[Leonhard]

So far only a hypothetical objection has been advanced.

I never did that.

The quote edit makes it appear that I'm saying that I never advanced hypothetical objections, here's a proper quotation.

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.

So far only a hypothetical objection has been advanced.

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

I never did that.

[Paprika]

So far only a hypothetical objection has been advanced.

I never did that.

Can complimenting someone on their hair or general beauty be acting on lust, disturbing women, or objectifying them?