The difference between harrassment and compliments.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

So how is that necessarily harassment?

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, its sufficient for it to be unwanted and unneeded. Since most sexual advances are unwanted by women, in most contexts, then it can constitute a light form of sexual harrasment.

[Leonhard]

What is wrong with finding a woman sexually attractive?.

Didn't catch this at first, but this is a strawman: I did not ask you to become a stoic. If you find someone attractive, sexually... big breasts, nice lips, nice firm bottom, fine.

Why is that the first thing you'd want to tell her? Someone you've never met. Not that its nice to see her around, no its nice to see her breasts. I kinda don't like that, and I can definitely see why many women don't like being treated like that.

[Paprika]

Because unless you're in a discotek, you cannot presume that when you approach a woman that she wants sexual advances.

So how is that necessarily harassment?

[Leonhard]

What is wrong with finding a woman sexually attractive? What if I said to a woman, nicely, "you know, you are a very sexy lady." Is that necessarily harassment? (BTW - I don't not speak to women that way based on my Christian ethics).

So you consider it bad, yet you wonder why its wrong? I need to get you right here Seer, because if you don't talk like that women because your Christian ethics... why do you wonder if its bad?

It would be sufficient to say that the majority of women find mens sexual advances uncomfortable most of the time. If this was it alone, that would be sufficient to say why we shouldn't do it. However beyond that I think its fair to say that approaching women sexually like what you're saying, is always wrong, because unless you're married to her, you have no right to be sexually involved with her.

And you shouldn't get married to her, simple because she's an attractive woman to you.

[seer]

There's a difference of sexually implicitness. When a man compliments a womans breasts he's saying "Right now I find you really sexually attractive, and I want you to know." and a woman complimenting on another womans hair "That's really neat what you did with that, it suits you."

What is wrong with finding a woman sexually attractive? What if I said to a woman, nicely, "you know, you are a very sexy lady." Is that necessarily harassment? (BTW - I don't not speak to women that way based on my Christian ethics).

[Leonhard]

So how is the former necessarily harassment?

Because unless you're in a discotek, you cannot presume that when you approach a woman that she wants sexual advances.