Point is: dealing with the 'lower head' is not as easy as it may seem. — praxis

Wow. If that is what your "Point" has been all along why not just say that about your own experiences?

These are the sorts of distinctions that aren't being made by the #MeToo wave. — Bitter Crank

I am glad to read that you know that many of us know the difference, even if all of us don't.

You don't mouth "help me" you say loudly enough for everybody to hear: "I'm done hugging, now let me go." If he continues, you knee him in the groin in self-defence. Fuck grace. If he's not being a gentleman, you can stop being a graceful lady. — Benkei

I appreciate your reminding me that I needn't tolerate unwanted sexual advances, even in the safest of places, which our friends home absolutely is. I appreciate your response Benkei, in that you reminded me that the power lay within me, even if grace be damned. But most of all, I appreciate your having a good understanding of my marriage with NicK and for not suggesting that anyone but I could have done anything that would have a lasting effect on the situation.

Gay bars do not have a straight-bar. Just as Straight bars do not have a gay-bar.
This means that you can have people of all sorts in all sorts of bars.
If a straight man finds himself in a gay bar then he might be more likely to attract the interests of gay men, but this does not imply harassment.
Where I live gay bars are ubiquitous and they tend to be the most civilised. I've never found any man's attention to be harassment, but on the rare occasions I've attended a gay bar I've found that gays just know you are straight, and leave you alone.
Out men tend to predict high for intelligence. Stupid gays are too stupid to come out, and pretend to be one of the boys. It takes courage, personal awareness and good reasoning to come out; or to live a gay life discretely.

Straight bars are hell holes of ambiguity. The horror, the horror.

Isn't the difference that at a gay bar, everyone (who is actually gay, at the gay bar) has a shared interest, namely, gay sex, or at least gay experimentation/flirtation/fun, etc? Whereas, at a bar that isn't a gay bar, there's an overwhelming hormonal mix of straight women, straight men, gay women, gay men, and everything in between? And so the playing field becomes that much more complicated in that bar. And so, by degrees, the issue of harassment becomes that much more complicated in a non-gay bar.

et al

This may or may not be of interest to anyone... But how do gay men behave toward each other in gay bars, and other working-class gay socializing or meet-up situations?

It isn't too surprising that the standards of behavior are somewhat different than heterosexual settings, but they aren't a world apart. One difference is that physical contact is often a stand-in or lead-in for verbal contact. Touch then talk. Not always, but often. Much more civilized. Physical contact can range from very frank sexual contact to much more tentative gestures. Not all forays are accepted, of course, and rejection is generally expressed also through ordinary gestures. Most guys don't take offense to unsolicited, unwanted gestures. If someone persists, they are verbally set straight, so to speak. No, it's not going to happen. Forget it.

Where gay men display more open hostility to unwanted contact is where their social status seems to be 'on the line', in public places like bars or gatherings. Some presumably socially insecure men almost display a "negative force field" around themselves when persons who don't enhance their social status approach.

The social distance between personal boundaries is generally smaller for gay men than straight men. This is especially obvious in the Midwest where interpersonal boundaries are generally the length of each person's arm. A lot of midwestern men need a couple of drinks to comfortably tolerate the crowdedness of a cruisy gay bar, let alone function socially.

At times and where possible, gay men also sometimes practice 'sexual contact before social contact', something that horrifies a lot of straight people. "How could that possibly be?" It's possible and it works quite well.

I've often thought heterosexuals would be happier if they operated on the same terms that gay men operate on. Sexual objects (other gay men) are fair game for a frank approach, and a firm "no" seems to work, partly because less is invested in the approach in the first place (less to lose), partly because there are lots more possible objects to approach (more fish in the sea, even if the sea is smaller than the heterosexual ocean).

This whole style of interaction does not work well for gay men who take an "only you and nobody else" approach. In that case, rejection isn't respected, and the campaign continues, often to the point of rather awkward, socially inappropriate, and embarrassing extremes of desperation. That's when gay behavior really begins to resemble some heterosexual behavior.

Are gay men always respectful, kind, decent, sexual partners, once the deal has been closed? No, of course not. Gay men are like other people in this respect, which is that people tend to be disappointing in ever so many ways.

Point is: dealing with the 'lower head' is not as easy as it may seem.

It's no bother to acknowledge that so something else must be at play. — praxis

>:) oh dear... >:O seems very conspiratorial

Basically giving someone space to cool-off, sure, that's the right thing to do in some situations. This is beside the point however because we're talking about a situation where support is being requested and there is denial long after the incident, according to the story.

Even if drunk, Tiff's brother's friend exhibited creepy behavior. It's no bother to acknowledge that so something else must be at play.

Ignoring someones distress is neither emotinally supportive or cognitively helpful. — praxis

It can be, if you presume that the person in question has sufficient reason in them to realise they are wrong. Ignoring someone that way can perform the function of getting them to re-assess their emotions before having a discussion. When we're in the throes of emotion, we're not necessarily the most rational.

Ignoring someones distress is neither emotinally supportive or cognitively helpful.

That would especially be a time for support or to help inject reason. And you suggest I'm a dick? — praxis

Yeah, you inject reason by not doing anything about it, and having her reconsider.

If your wife is bothered by something it's not necessarily a reason for you to bother. She may be bothered by something irrationally for example. — Agustino

That would especially be a time for support or to help inject reason. And you suggest I'm a dick?

Maybe the guy adopted Krishnamurti's attitude not to give a damn about what happens... >:O

From here.

Krishnamurti went on to give countless talks at which he frequently implied that his audience shouldn't be wasting their time listening to spiritual talks. But perhaps the most striking was a 1977 lecture in California. "Part-way through this particular talk," writes Jim Dreaver, who was present, "Krishnamurti suddenly paused, leaned forward and said, almost conspiratorially, 'Do you want to know what my secret is?' " (There are several accounts of this event; details vary.) Krishnamurti rarely spoke in such personal terms, and the audience was electrified, Dreaver recalls. "Almost as though we were one body we sat up… I could see people all around me lean forward, their ears straining and their mouths slowly opening in hushed anticipation." Then Krishnamurti, "in a soft, almost shy voice", said: "You see, I don't mind what happens."

(1) Clearly it bothered Tiff. That alone is a reason to bother. — praxis

If your wife is bothered by something it's not necessarily a reason for you to bother. She may be bothered by something irrationally for example.

(1) Clearly it bothered Tiff. That alone is a reason to bother.

(2) Sounds pretty base to me.

The top head represents reason, if I'm not mistaken, therefore perhaps the conversation was impaired by... something more base. Clearly the brother's friend was a creeper, so why didn't hubby support? — praxis

Hmmm I think you are thinking about something... very evil >:)

>:O



But apart from that, I think many times men (1) can't be bothered with what they take to be small things (afterall, the guy didn't really have sex with her or anything of that sort), and (2) they don't want to make a big fuss as that makes them appear weak.

she could not reason with his top head about the issue she presented — Agustino

The top head represents reason, if I'm not mistaken, therefore perhaps the conversation was impaired by... something more base. Clearly the brother's friend was a creeper, so why didn't hubby support?

Praxis, is your avatar your lower head by any chance? >:)

I think Tiff was quite clear that she was referring to her husband, and granted what she said, that she could not reason with his top head about the issue she presented, I think it was a fair comment.

Question: How should I have responded to the following scenario that just happened to me. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You wrote earlier that you learned how to handle such situations. Also, you claimed that the "lower head" was MUCH easier to deal with. Upon reflection, perhaps you'd like to soften this claim.

Really? BC, you have known me for over a decade and do you honestly think that I cannot tell the difference between a pat on the ass and rape?
Such an insult to the #MeToo movement. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'm absolutely sure that you can tell the difference. You, however, are a rational, thinking individual while #MeToo is a hashtag which is, perhaps, becoming something more complex and capable of differentiations. It's not there yet.

Two cases in particular can serve as an example of the misuse of #MeToo-ism: Al Franken and Garrison Keillor. Both men were accused of acts that hover around "bad manners" and "minor error in judgement" on the low end of the scale, not approaching sexual harassment and certainly not sexual assault. Both, however, were compelled to resign (Franken) or given the bums rush by their former employer (Keillor).

Harvey Weinstein's behavior was egregious, and lands solidly on the high end of the scale, at rape. Kevin Spacey's behavior with the 18 year old guy was in the middle, somewhere around deplorable--and actionable.

These are the sorts of distinctions that aren't being made by the #MeToo wave.

If I may give my two cents here,

I was raised in such a way that the thought of touching someone in an inappropriate manner would have been understood by me as being out of line and wrong. I've kept that roundabout instruction with me as I've gotten older and indeed I'd be horrified if I ever thought it wise to inappropriately touch someone. Unless I am messing around with my brother, or perhaps if I were married or in a romantic relationship, everyone else is off-limits with regard to any touching outside of a hand on the shoulder or an air-kiss on the cheek in greeting or goodbye.

In other words, I keep my hands in my pockets unless it is safe for me to offer a hug or a kiss or a comforting hand on a colleague or loved one's arm, leg, or shoulder. In civilized society, this sort of bodily respect ought to be an unwritten rule, as what follows from bodily respect is emotional and intellectual respect, too.

So until you solve the underlying moral issues, and adopt a culture which doesn't put sex so much on the pedestal, this issue won't be addressed adequately. — Agustino

This has no relation whatsoever to harassment. Abuse was worse in Victorian times, the middle ages and modern day Saudi-Arabia where sexuality is all but banned from the public sphere. If there's a wider context then it's mostly about equality in social power.

For this specific goal there's in my view no need to address the legal niceties of rape, sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances. It's not about punishment, it's about creating awareness, staking out social territory by women for women to get this addressed and hopefully getting men to stop with rape, sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances. — Benkei

Yeah, but it's precisely because you don't see the larger moral context of the problem that the issue will not be helped much by the #MeToo movement. The issues are more complicated than this. You're not addressing why men are harassing women in the first place. You just want to bully them not to, through social means. So until you solve the underlying moral issues, and adopt a culture which doesn't put sex so much on the pedestal, this issue won't be addressed adequately.

Question: How should I have responded to the following scenario that just happened to me.
NicK and I were leaving out best guy friends house at the end of a party and as we were saying goodbye and hugging as we do, our friends' brother opened his arms offering a hug to me (first time I had ever met him) and I stepped into the hug with my arms around his chest and then went to release and as I did he said to me "Oh push your body hard against mine" in a moaning drunk way and I pushed away but he wouldn't let me go. Keep in mind NicK is saying goodbye to others and not watching what is going down but my friends' sister in law saw what was happening and I mouthed to her, help me with BIG eyes and she stepped right in and broke his hug on me and took it onto herself. Why did she do this? Not because she wanted that kind of attention but she felt the need to help me and I am forever grateful. She intervened because she understood how uncomfortable I was and likely because it was her home that we were in but either way that time it ended gracefully.

So when NicK and I got in the car I explained to him what had happened and he dismissed it as the guy just being a "huggy" kind of person. I called bullshit on NicK because I am a "huggy" person and I have never uttered such words to a man while embracing and NicK still, today, believes that I am over-reacting. Am I? I don't even want to be around him because knowing NicK doesn't have my back on this makes me nervous. Not because I don't know how to put an end to it but because of the ripples within our friendships it would cause if he were to do it again and still not hear me and make me call him out on it. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You don't mouth "help me" you say loudly enough for everybody to hear: "I'm done hugging, now let me go." If he continues, you knee him in the groin in self-defence. Fuck grace. If he's not being a gentleman, you can stop being a graceful lady.

So why should I be surprised that sexual relations are some of the most abusive relations there are? It is entirely to be expected in this cultural environment. If you went on to speak with some of those men who grab women, etc. - which is a large majority of them - they would laugh at you. They would say, "you go do that, we will keep doing what we've been doing". They will say "you have a micropenis, so you want to stop people like us, with bigger tools, because you cannot compete with us". That is how they will approach this subject. They will say that you are a woman's slave, etc. So that's how the rhetoric will go. It will be impossible to change their minds. Even if you make a law against it, and enforce it, all that you will do is make them afraid, but inside, they will be the same, completely unchanged. So how will you ever get to such people? — Agustino

I see my self-deprecating humour passed by you. :D In any case, I have no clue how you arrive at sexual relations being abusive. Sex is great, flirting is great and people should revel in their sexuality. A dirty mind is a joy forever and bawdy jokes for the win.

The #metoo movement is doing a great job for women - and by women - to claim a safe space for them to talk about harassment, to lodge complaints without the victim blaming that has historically surrounded it or having to worry about reprisals (career or otherwise). For this specific goal there's in my view no need to address the legal niceties of rape, sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances. It's not about punishment, it's about creating awareness, staking out social territory by women for women to get this addressed and hopefully getting men to stop with rape, sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances.

As a result we finally see some transgressors punished. When it comes to punishment, the difference between a pat on the ass and rape becomes important but I don't see that as a goal of the movement itself.

There was once a joke I heard. Jesus, in his travels and talks, cured a blind man. A few months later, He saw the same man chasing after the women in the street. And He called him and asked him: "What are you doing? I gave you your sight back, and now you're chasing after women?!", and the man answered "What else can one use their eyes for? Before I was blind I was chasing women, when I was blind I stopped, because I couldn't chase them anymore, and now that you have restored my eyes I am enjoying them!"

The point of the joke is that some people cannot see the higher things in life. In this case, all that this man knew to do with his eyes, was to chase after women. He could see no higher use for his eyes than that. So when his eyesight was restored, what else could he do with it?

Much of the population, even in the highly developed Western countries, lives in a morally infantile state. One shouldn't even bother to mention the third world countries. When I lived at the countryside as a child, my family had to help save a woman who was our neighbour, since her husband was cutting her with the sword if she refused to have sex with him the way he wanted. You think such a man could be educated?! Not in a million years!

Question: How should I have responded to the following scenario that just happened to me.
NicK and I were leaving out best guy friends house at the end of a party and as we were saying goodbye and hugging as we do, our friends' brother opened his arms offering a hug to me (first time I had ever met him) and I stepped into the hug with my arms around his chest and then went to release and as I did he said to me "Oh push your body hard against mine" in a moaning drunk way and I pushed away but he wouldn't let me go. Keep in mind NicK is saying goodbye to others and not watching what is going down but my friends' sister in law saw what was happening and I mouthed to her, help me with BIG eyes and she stepped right in and broke his hug on me and took it onto herself. Why did she do this? Not because she wanted that kind of attention but she felt the need to help me and I am forever grateful. She intervened because she understood how uncomfortable I was and likely because it was her home that we were in but either way that time it ended gracefully.

So when NicK and I got in the car I explained to him what had happened and he dismissed it as the guy just being a "huggy" kind of person. I called bullshit on NicK because I am a "huggy" person and I have never uttered such words to a man while embracing and NicK still, today, believes that I am over-reacting. Am I? I don't even want to be around him because knowing NicK doesn't have my back on this makes me nervous, not because I don't know how to put an end to it but because of the ripples within our friendships it would cause if he were to do it again and still not hear me and make me call him out on it. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yah a similar thing happened to my mother once with someone from our family, except worse, since that person kissed her on the lips that time (while he was meant to kiss on the cheek, as it is traditional). When my father heard, he dismissed it too. That kind of stuff is sexism that has been internalised by the culture as acceptable in my opinion. So it's very difficult to convince people who think in this manner that they are wrong.

Question: How should I have responded to the following scenario that just happened to me.
NicK and I were leaving out best guy friends house at the end of a party and as we were saying goodbye and hugging as we do, our friends' brother opened his arms offering a hug to me (first time I had ever met him) and I stepped into the hug with my arms around his chest and then went to release and as I did he said to me "Oh push your body hard against mine" in a moaning drunk way and I pushed away but he wouldn't let me go. Keep in mind NicK is saying goodbye to others and not watching what is going down but my friends' sister in law saw what was happening and I mouthed to her, help me with BIG eyes and she stepped right in and broke his hug on me and took it onto herself. Why did she do this? Not because she wanted that kind of attention but she felt the need to help me and I am forever grateful. She intervened because she understood how uncomfortable I was and likely because it was her home that we were in but either way that time it ended gracefully.

So when NicK and I got in the car I explained to him what had happened and he dismissed it as the guy just being a "huggy" kind of person. I called bullshit on NicK because I am a "huggy" person and I have never uttered such words to a man while embracing and NicK still, today, believes that I am over-reacting. Am I? I don't even want to be around him because knowing NicK doesn't have my back on this makes me nervous. Not because I don't know how to put an end to it but because of the ripples within our friendships it would cause if he were to do it again and still not hear me and make me call him out on it.

Agustino I can understand your not getting into the middle of customs in another country on the first night but why would YOU condone that behavior by returning to the club with him day after day? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I did not go with him to the club, he was there, and he knew me, so he came to me to do what every man wants to do - impress the other with his skills. And I did not return to the club that often, but he did.

And I did not condone the behaviour, I didn't oppose it, since nothing could be done. You think I could have stopped him? He would have done it anyway, he didn't need me. It was very rare that he failed to get a girl - that was one of the nights when he would complain that "all the pussies suck tonight". And he wasn't alone actually doing this, he had a group of guys who were all doing this.

The second thought is that if "your colleague" had behaved that way in the states on the first night he might not have been tossed out by the establishments' management but by the second night and women were NOT receptive to his behavior, he would be escorted out. Any establishment worth their salt are not going to facilitate this unwanted behavior for fear that at some point they might be held legally accountable. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yeah, he often got kicked out of the club, but that's not much of a problem for someone like him, since they can always go to another club. And the bouncers at the club aren't always the same, hard to keep track of who enters and who leaves. And there are girls who are receptive to such behaviour, he was actually very successful with women by the standards of Western society.