By your own standard, this very statement is a hasty generalisation. Still, I guess you won't be willing to see my point, so I'll leave you to your indignation. — Akanthinos

Respect? You need to learn more before engaging in discussions with people.

What is your point, Michael? What are you attempting to convey? — TimeLine

The conversation went like this:

So you're saying you tell women "I am attracted to you" and then ask women if you can touch their leg or their hand? You ask women if you can kiss them?

How romantic. — JustSomeGuy

You don't ask a woman if you can kiss her. You ask her if she wants to kiss you. Or tell her that she can, if she wants. — Michael

I love it. 'I guess you can kiss me now if you feel you must.' — dog

I think it actually went:

Me: Are you fun?
Her: Yes
Me: Adventurous?
Her: Yes
Me: Show me
Her: How?
Me: Kiss me — Michael

My first comment was explaining to JustSomeGuy that waiting for consent to kiss someone doesn't have to take the form of the possibly unromantic (and 'submissive') "may kiss you?"

My second comment was letting dog know specifically how I used to do it as he seemed interested.

So what I'm trying to convey is that it's a false dichotomy to argue that if we don't just act on our interest (and risk possible harassment) then we're somehow failing to be romantic or failing to be the sort of man that women want (as JustSomeGuy keeps claiming).

The idea that waiting for consent conflicts with proper dating etiquette is absurd, but it seems to be the sort of idea that so many are pushing.

you are using interest in pick-up lines as a measure of social standing, competence and slut-shaming-- i.e. those women who would be interested in pick-up lines are dumb and shallow. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Wow, and I thought Michael was reading too much into it. Do you not realize how huge of a leap it is to assert those things based on what I actually said? Nothing about what I said implied any of that bullshit you just attributed to me.

In my experience, if women are receptive to dumb pickup lines, it says something about their personality that I believe would likely mean we were incompatible. Again, this is based on my experience. If I find something completely stupid, and she finds it endearing, I feel like we wouldn't be off to a very good start. Say what you want about my reasoning in that regard, but you do me a huge disservice to put such strong words in my mouth which were never there.

This is the type of behaviour and aggressivity that is tolerated in a Mod here?

So you're saying that this is what MeToo is truly about? Because I was under the impression it was about unwanted sexual advances from men in general, not sexist discrimination in the workplace. I don't use Twitter, though. Everything I know about this is from third party sources. — JustSomeGuy

It's not about asking for consent. It's about respecting women and whether they consent. Rather than about what a man might say, it is about whether a woman wants to be involved in some sort of sexual act or context.

The act of asking for consent is only an action taken in some circumstances to aid communication. In quite a number of instances, the act of asking for consent would actually constitute sexual harassment-- e.g. walking up to a stranger in the street and asking: "Do you consent have sex with me?"

This is the great irony of those who complain about "consent contracts" making counting stuffy and uncool. No amount of prior verbal or written agreement amounts to consent. It's about whether someone wants to have sex, a question of not of a stated agreement, but rather of someone's thoughts, feelings and wishes. Consent isn't about whether a man has asked. It's about if a woman wants to. (of course, this is true of everyone, but I'll keep the gendered aspect consider the context of this discussion).

If you consider that aggressive behaviour, than you only serve to prove my point. The suggestions that you have been making, the generalisations against women and the lack of respect is what I would consider 'aggressive' and using the method of trying to justify your behaviour by purporting my misdemeanor as a mod is coy and pointless.

The problem here is the intent that men may have to try and solicit sexual intercourse and to do this with little or no respect to the personhood of the woman in question. The problem is the intent here in men that enables bad men to behave badly by viewing women as merely an object for sexual gratification. This then means that in the workplace, their skills, their qualifications, their history of employment is all irrelevant. Who they are, what they like, the things that they do are irrelevant. They are just a sexual object and when a man has that in mind, the person does not exist. At university, same thing. Even in the home or even entrenched in cultures. — TimeLine

I understand now, and completely agree with your point. I do still think this is being clumsily handled by the MeToo movement, and a big part of that is likely the media's fault, but I absolutely understand that these issues are real and serious and much more widespread than many people have thought, up until recently. I was thinking the other day about how this recent sort of resurgence in women's rights activism and awareness began, and from what I can tell it really took off as a result of Trump running for president. It's ironic, and somewhat sad, that it took a sexist pig running for office to make our society acknowledge all of the problems women still face with regard to sexism and sexuality in general. It can also be seen as inspiring, though, that in the face of this adversity we're experiencing with him leading our country, people have decided to use it in a very positive way to bring up these issues and have these discussions. I should probably stop before this starts to come off as virtue-signaling, though. Point just being, despite my nitpicks with how some of these things are being handled, I do think we're heading in a good direction by airing out all of this "dirty laundry".

Point just being, despite my nitpicks with how some of these things are being handled, I do think we're heading in a good direction by airing out all of this "dirty laundry". — JustSomeGuy

Precisely, and I think the most important part of this movement is how it serves young women -particularly from cultures or environments that are very paternalistic and where gender violence and discrimination is at epidemic levels - by giving them a sense of solidarity and empowerment. In addition to this, it also acknowledges the problematic views that men have in general about women, about them being biologically irrational for instance.

No amount of prior verbal or written agreement amounts to consent. It's about whether someone wants to have sex, a question of not of a stated agreement, but rather of someone's thoughts, feelings and wishes. Consent isn't about whether a man has asked. It's about if a woman wants to. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Now that I absolutely agree with, and I'm sure you'll agree that a key aspect of this is that a woman wants to at that moment. I cannot believe the number of men I have heard complain that a woman was about to have sex with him and then changed her mind before they began, or even in the middle of it. Obviously these things can be frustrating, I have experienced it myself, but for so many men to disparage or place blame on the woman, to act as though they are "owed" sex from her for whatever reason...it's just so ignorant and ridiculous, and it's another one of these bad attitudes that need to change.

In my experience, if women are receptive to dumb pickup lines, it says something about their personality that I believe would likely mean we were incompatible. Again, this is based on my experience. If I find something completely stupid, and she finds it endearing, I feel like we wouldn't be off to a very good start. Say what you want about my reasoning in that regard, but you do me a huge disservice to put such strong words in my mouth which were never there. — JustSomeGuy

It's all implied by the way you are using "the sort of woman" in question as some sort of rule which defines what an individual woman thinks. You are objectifying such women as necessarily shallow and stupid on account of being attracted to someone who used a pick-up line. It's a status judgment which has nothing to do with anyone you might b involved with.

With respect to who you might be interested or compatible with, the argument doesn't make any sense. If you were to be with anyone who liked pick-up lines, you would be around them, encountering their wonder behaviours and personality. At no point will you be in a situation of measuring whether someone is worthwhile or interesting based on whether they are fine with pick up lines. It makes no sense to use this as a measure of someone's character.

The idea that waiting for consent conflicts with proper dating etiquette is absurd, but it seems to be the sort of idea that so many are pushing. — Michael

If you are on a date, you are clearly moving in the direction of mutual consent. The movement is not about this. It started because of Harvey Weinstein' bad behaviour and not while he was on a date.

It's all implied by the way you are using "the sort of woman" in question as some sort of rule which defines what an individual woman thinks. — TheWillowOfDarkness

(Y)

In addition to this, it also acknowledges the problematic views that men have in general about women, about them being biologically irrational for instance — TimeLine

What I said was that women have a biological predisposition to more frequent irrationality. The article I shared involved a medical doctor explaining why this is, and as I said it contained many comments from women confirming their own experiences. I never meant for it to sound like women are always irrational, or that all women are more irrational than all men. As I have point out in other comments here, men have their own hormonal and biological issues that are unique to them, as well.
It is a fact that women, for approximately one week every month, are subject to hormonal changes in their body which cause many unpleasant symptoms, one of which being irrationality. And this itself varies from woman to woman in intensity, obviously. But aside from these changes during menstruation, women in general are no more or less rational than men in general. I have known many very rational women and many very irrational men, and vice versa.

The suggestions that you have been making, the generalisations against women and the lack of respect is what I would consider 'aggressive' — TimeLine

Again, just to be clear, the lack of respect comes from my claiming that women, in the same way as men, tend not to value weakness in partners. This is what you claim amount to disrespect.

You are objectifying such women as necessarily shallow and stupid on account of being attracted to someone who used a pick-up line. It's a status judgment which has nothing to do with anyone you might b involved with. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, I'm not. I explained exactly what I meant by what I said, so you have no reason to continue misinterpreting it.

With respect to who you might be interested or compatible with, the argument doesn't make any sense. If you were to be with anyone who liked pick-up lines, you would be around them, encountering their wonder behaviours and personality. At no point will you be in a situation of measuring whether someone is worthwhile or interesting based on whether they are fine with pick up lines. It makes no sense to use this as a measure of someone's character. — TheWillowOfDarkness

As I said, my reasoning is based on my own experience. I don't claim it is 100% accurate, only that it is one of the many observations I have made in my relationships with women. Generally the women I have gotten along best with agreed with me about the ridiculousness of such pickup lines, and generally the women I haven't gotten along as well disagreed with me. It seems silly to single it out like this, but I can assure you this is a minor factor in my reasoning when it comes to potential relationships. The only reason it is being given so much light is because it applied to the conversation, so I mentioned it. There are many more important factors I consider in regards to the personalities of women who are potential romantic partners.

What I said was that women have a biological predisposition to more frequent irrationality. The article I shared involved a medical doctor explaining why this is, and as I said it contained many comments from women confirming their own experiences. I never meant for it to sound like women are always irrational, or that all women are more irrational than all men. As I have point out in other comments here, men have their own hormonal and biological issues that are unique to them, as well. — JustSomeGuy

These hormonal shifts are cyclical and irrespective of gender in as much as it is irrelevant to a person' decision-making process; being irritable can be caused by a number of other stressors including not getting a good nights sleep, or not eating the right thing, or having a bad day at work. To indicate that somehow women frequent this more than men is not correct, particularly if we take into consideration the statistics of gender-based violence against women where clearly men are behaving irrationally irrespective of hormones. Would it be justifiable if I were to say that men are biologically pre-dispositioned to act violently?

Again, just to be clear, the lack of respect comes from my claiming that women, in the same way as men, tend not to value weakness in partners. — Akanthinos

So, you are saying that all people do not value weakness?

I've been saying (all along >:o ) that, in general, statements like "women like assertive men who act and do not talk" are meaningless by ways of being trite. Most people, men or women, do not like unassertive individuals. And contrarily to what JustSomeGuy claimed previously, the "assertive move" doesn't have to be made physically, blind of any verbal consent.

Would it be justifiable if I were to say that men are biologically pre-dispositioned to act violently? — TimeLine

Considering I said the exact same thing earlier...

And as I said, men have their fair share of unique problems, as well. Many of which are also due to various hormones and biological processes. Tendency towards violence is an obvious one. — JustSomeGuy

...I would have to say yes, it is justifiable.

These hormonal shifts are cyclical and irrespective of gender in as much as it is irrelevant to a person' decision-making process; being irritable can be caused by a number of other stressors including not getting a good nights sleep, or not eating the right thing, or having a bad day at work. — TimeLine

Men do not menstruate, and therefore do not experience the same hormonal cycles as women. Men may have a tendency to be more aggressive in general, and both men and women obviously have fluctuations in various physiological and psychological things that result in varying levels of rationality from moment to moment, but only women experience the monthly cycle of hormonal changes which cause higher levels of irrationality. This is not a negative thing, this is not an insult, this is a biological fact. It does not discredit the opinions of women in any way. I only ever brought it up to highlight that there are, indeed, biological differences between men and women that allow for certain generalizations to be within reason. The generalization was not that all women are irrational, it was that it can be predicted with a high level of accuracy that during these specific times, women will be less rational, completely against their own will, due biological processes.

I don't find it insulting to say that men are biologically more prone to violence, and it shouldn't be insulting when it is said that menstrual cycles generally make women less rational during specific time frames. It's science.

And contrarily to what JustSomeGuy claimed previously, the "assertive move" doesn't have to be make physically, blind of any verbal consent — Akanthinos

I never claimed that.

Carry on.

I never claimed that.

Carry on. — JustSomeGuy

That's not at all what I claimed. What I said was that women cannot want men to make the first move spontaneously,while simultaneously wanting them to ask consent first. — JustSomeGuy

What was disgusting? Tell me so I can send more of it.

It isn't a pickup line. It's a flirty conversation. — Michael

That would be a workable flirty conversation only if you had already engaged in sexually exploitative behavior and were in the eager queue to take off on runway # 1, like, she facing you, your arms around her waist, she pressing herself against you, her lips a tongue flick from yours, and so on.

I would have to say yes, it is justifiable. — JustSomeGuy

Men do not have the innate predisposition to be violent against woman, JSG, otherwise gender-based violence would not be a crime. Patterns of violent behaviour are largely the product of the structure of any given society or culture and permission to be violent to your wife or children or women in general (violence needn't be physical) together with the physical power that enables some men to act in an effective way does not make it innate. There are many men that do not like violence but feel obligated as part of the social views of masculinity that either physical or monetary power and strength somehow gives you worth.

Men may have a tendency to be more aggressive in general, and both men and women obviously have fluctuations in various physiological and psychological things that result in varying levels of rationality from moment to moment, but only women experience the monthly cycle of hormonal changes which cause higher levels of irrationality. — JustSomeGuy

First of all, potential symptoms of PMS are not the same. I get sleepy, for instance. All I want to do is sleep. I also find fried potato cakes smothered in thick tomato sauce somehow appealing. That is not being 'irrational' and so when you bring up this suggestion, you are implying something false. Indeed, we - as in men and women - are completely different biologically, but how this effects our rationality is irrelevant whether it is monthly or seasonal.

I've been saying (all along >:o ) that, in general, statements like "women like assertive men who act and do not talk" are meaningless by ways of being trite. Most people, men or women, do not like unassertive individuals. — Akanthinos

You contradict yourself in that statement, because if you think that people - whether men or women - do not like unassertive people, then you are claiming that women do not like unassertive people. It does not change the nature of your generalisation by simply adding everyone into the equation. That is like someone saying a racist comment to culture A and then claiming they have friends from culture A as though it justifies the initial comment.

This is tangentially off-topic, but then again it isn't. Remember worker A's story? The one who assaulted the cleaning lady in the bus?

Just learned she wasn't fired because of that. In fact the corporation didn't care at all. She was fired because she slapped a newly hired dude on the bum. I mean, I'm just glad she's gone, and slapping dudes on the ass is unacceptable... But no one cared that she assaulted a coworker???

Just learned she wasn't fired because of that. In fact the corporation didn't care at all. She was fired because she slapped a newly hired dude on the bum. I mean, I'm just glad she's gone, and slapping dudes on the ass is unacceptable... But no one cared that she assaulted a coworker??? — Akanthinos

Can the cooperation care if the cleaning lady did not make any complaints (whereas it sounds likely the man made a complaint)? In addition, the cleaning lady was assaulted outside of work, although you did clarify that she experienced harassment - mostly by her way of using methods where she would not get caught like intentionally spilling drink - which is what bullies do.

That is like someone saying a racist comment to culture A and then claiming they have friends from culture A as though justified the initial comment. — TimeLine

I've been very clear in my use of conditionals. "Tend". "Generally". "Most of the time".

. It does not change the nature of your generalisation by simply adding everyone into the equation. — TimeLine

It does however change that you can't claim that I disrespect women when I specifically do not say anything about women, but about people.

That is like someone saying a racist comment to culture A and then claiming they have friends from culture A as though justified the initial comment. — TimeLine

I really doubt the validity of this analogy. If you wanted to push it, it could be "guy from culture A claims racist thing about culture A but says it's fine because he's from culture A".

Men do not have the innate predisposition to be violent against woman — TimeLine

I never said men are prone to violence against women, only to be more violent in general. Maybe I misunderstood what you were asking. Were you asking if men's higher biological predisposition to violence justified the rate of violence against women? If so, that wasn't how I understood it. I thought you were just asking if it was justifiable to say men have a biological tendency to be more violent than women.

There are many men that do not like violence but feel obligated as part of the social views of masculinity that either physical or monetary power and strength somehow gives you worth. — TimeLine

I can only speak for myself, but have always been a very non-violent person. I never fought back against bullies when I was young, never wanted to participate in the "play-fighting" my friends would do. I don't like pain, so why would I want to inflict that on others? Even as a child, I understood that boys were "supposed" to be violent (because of the culture) and yet I still refused to participate because I felt that violence was stupid and unpleasant and primitive. I was called every name in the book--pussy, faggot, loser, wimp, etc.--but I didn't let any of it change my mind. So, I have a hard time blaming society for any violence that men commit. We're all responsible for our own actions, and can easily choose to go against the "norms" if we want to.

Indeed, we - as in men and women - are completely different biologically, but how this effects our rationality is irrelevant whether it is monthly or seasonal. — TimeLine

It is absolutely not irrelevant how things affect our rationality, but other than that, what you say here is the exact sentiment I was trying to convey. Men and women are different biologically, and this results in various effects that each sex has to deal with more or differently than the other. To deny that the hormonal changes during a specific period of the menstrual cycle do not generally make women more irrational is a denial of science. Ironically, it is itself an irrational claim.

As I made explicit earlier, I never claimed women were more irrational than men. I never claimed men weren't irrational. I never claimed any of the things you seem to have inferred from my simple statement. But I have made my points very clear, so there's nothing more I can do. If you want to continue believing I said or meant something which I have told you I did not say or mean, I cannot stop you.

Can the cooperation care if the cleaning lady did not make any complaints (whereas it sounds likely the man made a complaint)? — TimeLine

As far as I know, she did make a complaint. And her boss too. I figured that since it's a cleaning service footed by the building in which we rent our office space, that it was taking its sweet time to resolve because of the go-between of both HR departements, and technically, the police. Maybe that was the case, and the pat on the ass just allowed my boss a good excuse to put an early end to it? I'll hope that was the case.

mostly by her way of using methods where she would not get caught like intentionally spilling drink - which is what bullies do. — TimeLine

Yeah. She was something. We once had a fire alarm at work, and she refused to leave work. I was alone with her as her supervisor, it was late at night, and she was convinced it was fake. So I waited by her for half an hour until her shift was over, and the second we exited our office, we started smelling smoke. I directed her to the fire exit stairs, and once we were both down a bit, I ran down to make sure that the whole stairwell was clear of fire, which is was. I then ran back up 16 floors to get to her, bring her down to the exit, where we met the firemen and the building security which were completely furious at us. I explained it all to them, took me about 3 hours of filing paperworks, she left immediatly.

The next day, I came into work to get pulled by my boss for a complaint that I had abandonned worker A in the stairway shaft, endangering her, and that I was lucky that I wasn't facing disciplinary measures and possibly legal damages. I was absolutely furious. Luckily, for some other reason, both of my bosses got fired that very same day, so when the new boss came in weeks later, I had a chance to explain my point.

Whew. Once again, oddly therapeutic. Sorry about being so off-topic.
And the worse... I have literally dozens of such stories.