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

I have a French accent. I could ask someone to pluck a chicken and it would still be more naturally romantic than all the artifice you can summon.

I'd also like to point out that you are displaying another negative characteristic that is generally more prominent in men. I'll call it "macho-ness", for lack of a better term. You are implying, with everything you have said to me so far, that you are "more of a man" than I am; that I am "inadequate" in comparison to you. And you're doing this to a complete stranger. Talk about chuckle-worthy.

You only display your own inadequacies. — Akanthinos

More attack on my character. Not surprising, at this point.

Engaging women you are interested in verbally and leading to your attraction for them as a subject shows confidence and extroversion. — Akanthinos

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.

Are you a woman? I cannot see a man saying something like this because it's just plain inaccurate. It shows a complete lack of experience in regards to interacting with potential romantic or sexual female partners. In other words: that's just not how things work. — JustSomeGuy

This is chuckle-worthy. You only display your own inadequacies. This is how things have not worked for you in the past. It has pretty much only ever worked for me. Engaging women you are interested in verbally and leading to your attraction for them as a subject shows confidence and extroversion.

I'll also share some evidence for my claim that women are, in general, more irrational than men due to certain biological processes and hormones.

Here

I suggest reading the article, as well as the comments below. You will see a number of women attest to this by sharing their personal experiences.

I understand that the modern social environment disparages anybody who says anything that could be interpreted as being the least bit negative about women (and other groups), but the social environment does not change the facts, biology, or science.

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.

creepiness — Akanthinos

Vague concept. Can you clarify.

If you aren't a creep out to justify his creepiness, that is. — Akanthinos

Also, I'd like to add that this statement seems to ignore everything I actually said. I explained that I have always waited far longer than necessary to attempt to initiate sexual/romantic encounters in order to be absolutely certain that this is what the women wanted. How exactly is that "creepy"? It seems exactly the opposite, to me.
You really seem to have read into my statements only what you wanted to read, having decided prematurely that I am a "creep" simply because you disagree with me on certain points.

You don't have to read minds. You can always talk to your prospective sexual partner. If you aren't a creep out to justify his creepiness, that is. — Akanthinos

Are you a woman? I cannot see a man saying something like this because it's just plain inaccurate. It shows a complete lack of experience in regards to interacting with potential romantic or sexual female partners. In other words: that's just not how things work.

*Doubt about creepiness intensifies* — Akanthinos

So the paragraph you quoted made you doubt my creepiness? I have a feeling that's not what you meant to say.

*Doubt about creepiness settles into sad, resignated certainty* — Akanthinos

A few things:
1. I don't think you know what "creepy" means. It does not mean "people who disagree with me."
2. Personal attacks against one's character are not a substitute for an argument. In fact, you are committing one of the most basic logical fallacies.
3. If you have any actual counterpoints to anything I said, feel free to share them, though I can't guarantee anything you say from now on will be taken seriously after your initial response.

It happened years ago and I don't know if she reported it. I'd ask but she's out. If I recall, she told the story in the general context of it being an example of what women have to deal with. She had other stories but that was the worst.

I was at a nude beach with a woman once and we noticed, to our astonishment, a guy walking down the shoreline towards us nude and masturbating. Either he got a thrill out of doing that or it was some sort of invitation. Fortunately, he didn't get too close before turning around. Though technically illegal, he could have been fined and put on a sex offender list, to my mind this falls under 'the right to bother', as referred to in the Deneuve letter on page 7 of this topic. The former example with the guy in the car, that's force and assault, even though he didn't touch her.

But you cannot expect to have men make the first move to initiate sexual encounters, with the requirement that it's only the men you want to have sexual encounters with. People don't know what you want until you make it explicit. Men cannot read minds, and body language is not even close to sufficient since it can be so easily misinterpreted. — JustSomeGuy

This is more than a little akward. You don't have to read minds. You can always talk to your prospective sexual partner. If you aren't a creep out to justify his creepiness, that is.

I love women, I absolutely respect women, and I consider myself a true feminist in the sense I that I believe in equality between genders. Sexism is stupid and ignorant, but that doesn't mean there aren't general differences between sexes. One difference I have personally observed to be true is that women are more irrational, and there is a biological basis for this involving hormones. — JustSomeGuy

*Doubt about creepiness intensifies*

Females are not worse off than men in society, and this movement completely ignores all of the things men deal with.
Women do not have more problems; they have different problems, but there is still plenty of overlap.
Men experience sexual assault all the time, as well. — JustSomeGuy

*Doubt about creepiness settles into sad, resignated certainty*

Is it not the case that men are usually expected by women to be the initiator of romantic activity, of sexual activity, and so on? Women can and do also initiate amorous, romantic sexual activity, but it seems like men are expected to prosecute the case, so to speak. Clearly, the beginning of an assault could be similar to the beginning of an exceedingly pleasant interlude. — Bitter Crank

This is exactly correct. I've never been an assertive person, and I've never been great at reading body language. Because of this, every sexual encounter I've had with a woman was initiated much later than it could have been, because I always had a hard time gauging if she was actually receptive to it. I know this because they would always tell me that they had been waiting so long for me "make a move" or say something to the effect of "it's about damn time!" My response to this, both internal and sometimes verbal, was "why didn't you just make the first move, then?" The ones I did actually say this to responded with "it's sexier when a man makes the first move" or something to that effect. Personally I find that to be irritating as hell and a complete load of shit, even more so now that this MeToo movement has taken off. It seems this is just another case of women wanting to have things both ways, without actually thinking about the implications or the reality of the things they want.

I love women, I absolutely respect women, and I consider myself a true feminist in the sense I that I believe in equality between genders. Sexism is stupid and ignorant, but that doesn't mean there aren't general differences between sexes. One difference I have personally observed to be true is that women are more irrational, and there is a biological basis for this involving hormones. This isn't to put women down or anything like that, men have their fair share of problems, as well. But you cannot expect to have men make the first move to initiate sexual encounters, with the requirement that it's only the men you want to have sexual encounters with. People don't know what you want until you make it explicit. Men cannot read minds, and body language is not even close to sufficient since it can be so easily misinterpreted.

Personally, I'm all for changing the dynamic so that women are expected to initiate or make the first move. They would soon see how stressful and uncertain a game that truly is, how difficult it is to read people, and how often you can get shot down or downright humiliated. But that's not what women seem to want. They want to, as they say, "have their cake and eat it too."

But to me Philosophy should be completely open minded and not based on preserving one's own world view.

A similar issue is with God debates. I think some people are so committed to favouring gods non existence that they are not given equal weight to all arguments (but they don't explicitly state this) — Andrew4Handel

Yes I'm surprised sometimes by the unrecognized, or at least unacknowledged, presuppositions people bring to the philosophical party.

But there are commitments one develops in one's life. I realized in a chat on the #metoo topic that I'm very committed to supporting a rather pedantic, anti-wishy-washy but pro-feminist viewpoint. I've loved and been loved by feminists, spent much of my working life among more women than men, read a lot in the subject area...so I find myself with baggage. Could I retrace my steps back to first principles in such debates? I believe I could, but it would take quite a long essay not a snappy forum response. And honestly, I've had such debates in the past, now I'm interested in other things.

So I move on. Gods are another case in point: I was brought up in an agnostic household so arguments in favour of a single capitalised God come to me as very much an intellectual exercise. I am interested in religious feeling, and I realize now I'm old that's partly because my parents had such feelings: but my Dad had lost his Catholic faith over the Pope's actions in the war and after, and my Mum's religion was one of practice rather than belief. So I can't help, because of my life, being 'committed to favouring gods non existence', at least compared to someone who was brought up with monotheism, or who thinks monotheistic 'belief' is something I should take more seriously. These things are dialectical rather than absolute, I suggest.

The areas I'm interested in, where I have less baggage - like philosophy of language, epistemology, and virtue ethics - there I have tried hard to strip away my presuppositions and be 'open-minded'. But one can't be vacuous in being open. One brings one's experience and understanding from elsewhere to bear on new topics. Open-mindedness then involves entertaining novel ideas, or new evidence, or challenges to one's preconceptions from surprising angles. But there must be qualifications to get through the gateway of open-mindedness. If other people show prejudice, or show what looks like a dodgy attitude to evidence, or adopt a bullying or self-justifying tone (I find that happens too much), then I'm liable to switch off and turn away. Unless I fancy the challenge!

The worst story I can remember my wife telling was of a guy running her to the side of the road with his car while she was riding a bike and then masturbating in front of her. Freaky, and probably not the sort of thing any dude needs to worry about. — praxis

But such routines are so damned complicated! I just don't get it. Rococo perversity.

a guy at a park who was staring me down — Marchesk

It isn't aggression; the intense stare is invitational. It's a silent signal of interest; staring back is likely to be taken as confirmation of interest. for a full discussion of signaling in park restrooms, see Laud Humphrey's Tearoom Trade, 1971, Aldine-Atherton, publisher.

particularly at parks — Marchesk

Tastes vary, but what's not to like about sex in a park? (Maybe not in the shithole, unless it's really well maintained. But if it's that well maintained, it's probably never unattended. It might as well be locked.)

More generally, I don't accept that studies have established women fall for bastards — Benkei

Of course some women fall for bastards. I don't know why they do, but some women gravitate towards abusive men, and when they find an abuser, it is difficult to pry them loose. Sometimes. Childhood abuse sometimes accounts for this tendency, but not always.

I have no problem with women calling out the bastards, the crude abusers, the beaters, and so forth. It is proper that these men should be identified as assaulters. This is not the kind of behavior that is difficult to understand

I'm as gay as June 21st is long, so I have no expertise in relating sexually to women, or even romantically. But...

Is it not the case that men are usually expected by women to be the initiator of romantic activity, of sexual activity, and so on? Women can and do also initiate amorous, romantic sexual activity, but it seems like men are expected to prosecute the case, so to speak. Clearly, the beginning of an assault could be similar to the beginning of an exceedingly pleasant interlude.

If sex is about power (it is only to some extent, frequently not very much) then there are power games women can play as well. There also seems to be a long tradition of women taking the task of controlling male sexuality to suit the needs and wants of women and child rearing.

[Straight men don't behave (sexually) like gay men because straight women don't let them, I have heard. Gay men amongst themselves tend to put up few barriers to sex with each other.]

I can see women (or men) in a relationship (or marriage) fending off advances from an interloper in order to avoid conflict. But the same fending off of advances seems to occur just as often when there is no relationship to defend. It appears to be a power game, I hear references to women repelling advances from someone in an ordinary social situation, but it seems like there is a certain amount of 'gate keeping' about it. "I'm free of any commitments, but male approaches have to be metered so I stay in control."

So that hand on the knee is ok, moving 2 inches up the thigh is ok, but 3 inches exceeds the allowable loss of control.

It isn't assault and battery that is disruptive about #me2, it's the power game playing that is confusing and annoying, and the power game is one women do and can play along with men. Women aren't defenseless, powerless, ineffectual agents; they never have been, and they aren't now.

guy running her to the side of the road with his car while she was riding a bike and then masturbating in front of her — praxis

That's two criminal offenses in one incident. Did she get his license plate and report him?

Freaky, and probably not the sort of thing any dude needs to worry about. — praxis

I did have a guy at a park who was staring me down when I went into bathroom, enter it and come to my stall. But at least he backed off when he saw I was taking a dump. I do get that uncomfortable feeling from gay guys at parks staring me down that women might feel on a regular basis. Only rarely, but I do get this feeling they strongly want action and they're trying to assess my interest.

I don't like it because I'm a total stranger, but maybe I'd feel different if it was an attractive female? Of course I'm not innocent in this matter either. I'm just not attracted to guys, particularly at parks. It's not harassment, but it does help empathize with what women might go through, for a brief moment.

The worst story I can remember my wife telling was of a guy running her to the side of the road with his car while she was riding a bike and then masturbating in front of her. Freaky, and probably not the sort of thing any dude needs to worry about.

I stopped going to bars, which was where most of it took place, and just generally have become less social. Things happened a few times when I was a younger teenager, and a couple other times in my 20s with girls or women I knew through other people and we were hanging out somewhere in a group. But for the most part it was in college, at bars, and the women were strangers. Sometimes they were my age, sometimes older. Obviously most of them were likely drinking, but that shouldn't matter because it doesn't matter when it comes to men doing inappropriate things.

None of the assaults were pleasant, but I honestly feel strange even calling them assaults. It's too strong a word, I think, but that's how interactions of this nature have come to be described. Most of them just irritated me, though a few shook me up worse and took a while to fully get over. I understand what it feels like for women to experience this, and I absolutely understand that it generally happens more often to women than men. It's not a pleasant thing, sometimes it can be a bit traumatizing, and depending on your mental health it could potentially have a more serious effect psychologically. But all that being said, people who are victims of such interactions should not be put into the same group as rape victims. That's really the point I've been trying to make with all this.

I'm deeply disappointed by the tone and content on Streetlight's part (often a careful thinker). — Roke

I've been intentionally callous, but then, there's so little here worth taking seriously. Pseudonym reels off so many words, all the better to not talk about the me2 movement at all. The essential complaint being that the conversation occuring is not the one he'd like to have. How irrelevant.

And to criticize a movement built off of calling out actual, concrete instances of harassment involving named individuals as being too ambiguous? Snake oil undeserving of anything but contempt.

I, myself, before I was 25 years old, had been a victim of female misbehavior... — JustSomeGuy

Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose it stoped after 25? You moved to a better neighborhood? Started working out?

Well, I've explained how I see things, and you see them differently. I have my opinions about these matters, but I'm more interested in philosophy on this forum, so having explained my views, I'll see you in other threads no doubt :)

education, networks, purported 'manners', wider knowledge of the world. — mcdoodle

These are all part of the tangible system, though. These things help you gain wealth, but in order to utilize these things you need to already have wealth.

This isn't comparable to the issue at hand.

when incomes remain unequal, and labour remains unequal, and there is still a backlog of problems to be remedied: the incidence of domestic violence, for example. — mcdoodle

The "gender wage gap" is one of the most intellectually dishonest concepts today, and yet people continue to perpetuate the lie. There are laws that prohibit pay discrimination based on gender. The true reasons for the average difference between male and female income have been analyzed by many, and are readily available online. You cannot have looked into the issue in any significant way if you believe there is gender discrimination in salary.

As for the other "inequality" problems you cite, males have their fair share of problems they deal with in society, as well. That's not to say we cannot talk about only one or the other at a time, but it has very clearly become the common sentiment that women are worse off than men, and it is men's fault.

I've lived 69 years now, and many women I've known have told me how deeply things like this have affected them. For others, it's been a pinprick they've brushed off. I'd be amazed if anyone doesn't know instances of male misbehaviour towards women that the men got away with. — mcdoodle

I, myself, before I was 25 years old, had been a victim of female misbehavior at least a couple dozen times. On multiple occasions I had my genitals rubbed or grabbed through my pants, my butt slapped or squeezed, my chest and legs rubbed inappropriately, and had been forcefully kissed on the mouth while trying to resist. I understand what it feels like to experience unwanted and forceful sexual assault. I do not blame females as a class for allowing this to happen, I blame the individual females who committed the acts. Much more importantly, I do not equate these experiences with actual rape.

The biggest issue I have with this movement is that it lumps together men who touched a female's leg or back, or men who allegedly masturbated while on the phone with a woman, with actual rapists. This is absolutely insane, and a terrible insult to true rape victims.

So, to summarize:
Females are not worse off than men in society, and this movement completely ignores all of the things men deal with.
Women do not have more problems; they have different problems, but there is still plenty of overlap.
Men experience sexual assault all the time, as well.
Equating sexual assault with actual rape is detrimental to this entire discussion.

This is an embarrassing discussion for a philosophy forum. Pseudonym is the only one taking it seriously. I'm deeply disappointed by the tone and content on Streetlight's part (often a careful thinker). This is an uncomfortable chime in on my part, but the PC game being played has grown very tiresome and I won't be part of the silent crowd that enables a false notion of consensus.

Edit - I don't want to be unfair to mcdoodle, his posts have also been of reasonable quality here.

When wealthy people disempower the lower class, it isn't through psychological means--they have created a tangible system where it is harder for lower class people to gain wealth. The prevention is due to the wealthy physically having power over the unwealthy. In the case of women being unable to deny unwanted sexual advances, we're talking about something psychological. So are you saying that men are psychologically stronger than women, and this is what allows them to have this power over them?

My whole point is really just this: how is this supposed system actually enforced? — JustSomeGuy

This is neither my experience of life nor my understanding of things I have read over the years. The shift from talking about 'men as a whole' to 'men as a class' is to say that systems of power aren't always a deliberate rational structure. It is difficult to move from poor to rich when your ability is equal, for instance, not merely because of a tangible system, but because there are multiple obstacles in your way - education, networks, purported 'manners', wider knowledge of the world. When I left a poor home to go to a posh university, many years ago, it was a fearful social experience that wounded me for life, even though it also liberated me into learning and the fellowship of other smart people.

All manner of people in power operate in complex fashions. Bullies in both childhood and adulthood operate through gangs and punish people who inform on them. Abusers create a world where the abused often feel responsible for what has happened to them. The unwilling are manipulated by the cunning. Repetition and exemplary punishment frighten others into silence. And the rational claim equality exists when incomes remain unequal, and labour remains unequal, and there is still a backlog of problems to be remedied: the incidence of domestic violence, for example.

None of this is a totalising system. The bullied, the abused, feminists, the racially-harassed break through, and norms shift. Lots of people - like me - move among egalitarian groups and learn different mores. Good women and good men get together and there's no hassle.

I can only tell you, as far as the sexual arena is concerned, I've lived 69 years now, and many women I've known have told me how deeply things like this have affected them. For others, it's been a pinprick they've brushed off. I'd be amazed if anyone doesn't know instances of male misbehaviour towards women that the men got away with.

How did my hands get ahold of yours without asking you first?

Gosh, I wish I could say that I have encountered that but I haven't. I have always been the one sliding the hands of males back to neutral zones such as the shoulder, the cheek, the hips, the waist or the knee. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You avoided the actual question. Your initial statement implied that men need consent to touch you, but you do not need consent to touch them. That inconsistency is at the heart of this whole issue. Had the hypocrisy of that sentiment even occurred to you before it was pointed out? It seems obvious to me that there aren't clear guidelines being proposed by anybody in this MeToo group. All that is being said is that unwanted physical contact from a man to a woman is wrong. Not only is this hypocritical, as has just been made clear, but "unwanted physical contact" hasn't even been clearly defined, and every woman I have heard speak about this seems to have a different idea about what constitutes it.

If the only claim being made is "rape is wrong", then it seems to me you aren't actually saying anything at all. We all know rape is wrong, and those who don't aren't going to suddenly see the light now. It really appears as if the MeToo movement is simply saying:
"There's a problem. Now somebody else fix it."

I'm sorry, I can't really understand the argument in your response.

I get that you think creeps like Weinstein are listening, we'll have to just agree to differ on that front. Personally, I see him getting out of therapy and trying exactly the same thing but now getting even more of a kick out of it because this time doing what he does has become even more of a social taboo, even more thrill to be had from breaking it.

What I don't understand is what your response to the rest of my post means. You seem firstly to be suggesting that the really crucial question of what physical contact should require consent simply doesn't matter because you personally have never had to deal with it. That seems a strangely short-sighted attitude, I'm sure that's not what you mean but I can't figure out what you're saying here.

Hopefully we can learn together, that way men know the boundaries and women know how to speak up to make it clear and give consent. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I could not agree more with this sentiment, I'd go further to say that this should be a constant process, people change, new generations have new attitudes and they don't always fit with the attitudes of previous generations, but we all have to get along anyway. What I don't see is how you think MeToo is helping this learning process. It seems incredibly one-way, and the vast majority of the sentiment is that men should have known this all along, not that we're learning together what the boundaries are for this particular generation in this particular culture.

But permission for what? All forms of physical contact, anything which could possibly be construed as a sexual advance? That's the question that no-one seems to want to answer. I can't think anyone other than a sociopath would deliberately want to make someone else really uncomfortable, and I can guarantee you that sociopaths are not going to be following the MeToo debate and seriously considering changing their behaviour as a result, they're going to completely ignore it as they have completely ignored social convention in all other fields. Someone like Harvey Weinstein is not listening, So to whom are we addressing these concerns? The people who are listening are ordinary men who have, at least, a moderate amount of concern for the welfare of their fellow humans, and much of what has been said has thrown them into a moral quagmire. — Pseudonym

I beg to differ with you in that someone like Harvey Weinstein is not listening because as of yesterday, Harvey Weinstein who is seeking "help" up the road from our ranch got slapped across the face by a fellow male customer at the establishment so the non verbal communication is blunt and clear.

Whose concerns are we addressing? Well mine as a female if I get to express it. I thought as a grown woman with a family that I would be able to fend off an unwanted sexual advances yet in the life of this thread alone, I have encountered another situation where I felt pressured. I am not a weak woman and yet I found myself feeling vulnerable to what was happening. It wasn't until I was able to talk here that I was reminded that there is a time for grace and a time to not be graceful and yes sometimes it takes reflection to figure out how to handle it in the future.

So how did you get hold of my hand without asking me first? Are hands excepted from this no touching rule? If so, why not backs, knees and arms (all of which have been cited by highly publicised MeToo accusations). If you have a reason for allowing hands but dismissing backs, knees and arms, how are you arriving at that reason and justifying it's imposition on all other humans on pain of public humiliation? — Pseudonym

How did my hands get ahold of yours without asking you first?

Gosh, I wish I could say that I have encountered that but I haven't. I have always been the one sliding the hands of males back to neutral zones such as the shoulder, the cheek, the hips, the waist or the knee. I can only think of one guy that asked if he could hold my hand and I was swept off my feet but it was also in the 8th grade on a field trip.

I have no problem with us , as a culture, having a discussion about what we find to be acceptable, and trying to find solutions which minimise the harm done to people who feel uncomfortable whilst still allowing those who do not the freedom to express themselves. The problem with MeToo is that this is not a conversation. It is a particular group, largely of one gender, at one particular moment in time suggesting that some behaviours not only are universally unwanted, but always have been and men should have known better. — Pseudonym

There is a spectrum and not all of them are Harvey Weinstein's but he is an extreme which is what most movements start with, an extreme. I don't think that it is fair to treat all the 'trespasses' the same but understand that many people that have experienced sexual harassment/ sexual abuse haven't really worked through what they have been hiding in not speaking up sooner about such trespasses.
Hopefully we can learn together, that way men know the boundaries and women know how to speak up to make it clear and give consent.

I realize as I read what I have written how backward this all seems to be moving but in the era of PC, it is about the best we can do.

"Is it better to ask for permission first or ask for forgiveness later?" — ArguingWAristotleTiff

But permission for what? All forms of physical contact, anything which could possibly be construed as a sexual advance? That's the question that no-one seems to want to answer. I can't think anyone other than a sociopath would deliberately want to make someone else really uncomfortable, and I can guarantee you that sociopaths are not going to be following the MeToo debate and seriously considering changing their behaviour as a result, they're going to completely ignore it as they have completely ignored social convention in all other fields. Someone like Harvey Weinstein is not listening, So to whom are we addressing these concerns? The people who are listening are ordinary men who have, at least, a moderate amount of concern for the welfare of their fellow humans, and much of what has been said has thrown them into a moral quagmire.

The difference between the two is non-verbal MY hand moving yours — ArguingWAristotleTiff

So how did you get hold of my hand without asking me first? Are hands excepted from this no touching rule? If so, why not backs, knees and arms (all of which have been cited by highly publicised MeToo accusations). If you have a reason for allowing hands but dismissing backs, knees and arms, how are you arriving at that reason and justifying it's imposition on all other humans on pain of public humiliation?

In Victorian times it was common practice to ban a man from even talking to a woman without a chaperone, among the Na people there are no marriages and sex is freely given and taken between all members of the tribe, yet even mentioning sex in front of one's family is considered extremely offensive. The Guajiro people have a ceremonial dance where if a woman trips a man during the dance, they must have sex. The anthropologist John Cowan Messenger reported that people on the Irish Island of Inis Beag do not even allow married couple to see each other naked but rather have sex as fully clothed as possible, for a woman to initiate sex there is considered the height of indecency. Just the exposure of any female flesh is considered immodest in some Muslim cultures. How on earth can we presume to decide what behaviour is acceptable in the face of such massive diversity?

If a man took his shirt off in public in Inis Beag, that would be seen as an unwanted sexual advance, in our culture would be largely irrelevant but perhaps close proximity to another person in that condition would be too much, among the Na or the Guajiro, it would be actually expected of them to do that and much more.

I have no problem with us , as a culture, having a discussion about what we find to be acceptable, and trying to find solutions which minimise the harm done to people who feel uncomfortable whilst still allowing those who do not the freedom to express themselves. The problem with MeToo is that this is not a conversation. It is a particular group, largely of one gender, at one particular moment in time suggesting that some behaviours not only are universally unwanted, but always have been and men should have known better.

Exactly, so men looking to attract a particular type of woman are going to attempt to display confidence (including sexual confidence) in order to make themselves seem attractive. — Pseudonym

Which most men or women do not have an issue with. It becomes an issue when that man "looking to attract a particular type of woman" lays his hands on my body without permission, nonverbal or verbal. The difference between the two is non-verbal MY hand moving yours on MY body and verbal permission such as asking for a kiss.

I like a confident man, I like a strong friendly hug and I have friends who are not my husband that put their arm around me in restaurant or on the boat but they are friends, friends for decades not someone I just met. By nature I am a "huggy" person and when working in the medical field, I was always open to hugging my patients, did it then and would do it now, even if the employee manual required me to get permission from the patient first. See because if someone really wants to touch you? They will laugh at the permission slip they would have to sign and think back to permission slips for field trips back in grammar school, that their PARENTS had to sign, as they signed it themselves.

There is a question asking "Is it better to ask for permission first or ask for forgiveness later?"
I would say society has made it clear to do the former rather than the latter.

A quick note to say that this is a misleading cliché. Psychological studies and ordinary experience suggest rather that many women are attracted to men with qualities that "bastards" often happen to have, but which many non-bastards also have: confidence, independence, a lack of neediness, emotional unavailability, and so on. — jamalrob

Exactly, so men looking to attract a particular type of woman are going to attempt to display confidence (including sexual confidence) in order to make themselves seem attractive. The point wasn't to say that these qualities were the sole preserve of 'bastards' but that in some cases they are seen as attractive traits by some women and men tend to disproportionately seek out these type of women for short term relationships despite them being in a minority. Thus it is a misrepresentation to say that men have developed this sexually confident approach just to show dominance despite that fact that all women hate it. That's the point I was trying to make. The cliché was maybe a little hurried, but I did elaborate in my next post.