Monday, July 8, 2013

Sexual Harassment vs Dating in the Real World II

As we've seen in Sexual Harassment vs Dating in the Real World I, feminist definitions of sexual harassment are to a large degree subjective. Remark to some woman that she's as tall as your wife, and you're on the hook for a five-figure settlement --- if you're a Republican presidential candidate. But let's have a look at what Joe Schmoe has to expect at Monash University in case he wants to meet girls:

What actions constitute sexual harassment? 
Examples of sexual harassment:
• uninvited touching;
• uninvited kisses or embraces;
• smutty jokes or comments;
• making promises or threats in return for sexual favours;
• displays of sexually graphic material including posters, pin-ups, cartoons, graffiti or messages on notice boards, lockers, desks, computer screens;
• sexual insults or taunting;
• repeated invitations to go out especially after being refused previously;
• flashing or sexual gestures;
• sex-based insults, taunts, teasing or name-calling;
• staring or leering at a person or at parts of their body, and
• unwelcome physical contact such as massaging a person without invitation or deliberately brushing up against them.
Sure, flashing someone or calling someone names is something I'd consider inappropriate. All the other bullet points are at least to some degree questionable. Let's start with "uninvited touches". You may now say that there is no way that this is okay, but look at dating in the real world: Assume you're talking to some chick in a bar, she's pressing her tits against you, and you may now as well touch her. She didn't first ask whether it's okay with you if she pressed her tits against you, and it would be pretty weird if she asked for permission first. Likewise, it would be pretty absurd if she claimed that you sexually harassed her if you proceeded with putting your hand on her ass.

Or let's talk about "repeated invitations to go out especially after being refused previously". Doesn't this seem odd to you? I don't know in which world you live in, but in the world I live in women sometimes play hard to get, and you can't always tell whether she's stringing you along or just wants to hold out because she's read some bullshit book like "The Rules". I advise guys to not bother at all with women who play games, but it is a fact that plenty of women do. Feminists apparently demand that men have to be able to read the mind of every women, without demanding from women to be clear about their intentions. This seems problematic to me, but let's not tax female understanding of logic too much and simply agree that I'm a sexist pig for pointing out those grave errors of reasoning.

An elderly gentleman once said to me, "If a lady says 'no' she either means 'no' or 'not yet', because if she said 'yes', she wouldn't be a lady." Don't dismiss this as a silly joke! It does point to the realities of social conventions. Despite "women's liberation", not so much has changed in recent decades. Women still think they are sluts if they give it up too soon or seem too eager. What they don't get is that they are not sluts for fucking a guy. Seriously, hardly anybody would think that you're a slut if you have sex or agree to go out on a date, which may mean the same thing. It'll only turn into a problem for a girl's reputation once she has to invent creative counting procedures to keep her number of your previous sexual partners down.

Lastly, let's talk about "staring or leering at a person or at parts of their body". Of course you can say that it's not okay if some old "creep" ogles the lush body of some 17-year old. Yet, let's not forget that women expose parts of their body to be noticed by men. Their dating strategy is decidedly passive. But if, dear "ladies", your strategy consists of attracting guys by presenting parts of your body and hoping that the guys will do all the work, then you just have to live with the fact that some of the guys you get the attention of may not quite look like your ideal man. (I've written about this problem in greater detail in Note to Women: If you Don't want to get Hit On, then Don't Dress in a Way that Communicates the Opposite, which discusses the case of a homely-looking girl that went to a tech conference wearing revealing clothes and complaining that she didn't get hit on by George Clooney.) What makes this worse is that it's not exactly rare that women hold a grossly inflated view of their market value, and don't realize that the guys they are actually interested in would never in a thousand years make a move on them.

As you see, the feminists at Monash University dream up complete fantasy scenarios, and if you previously thought that my statement that feminists demand from men to be able to read the mind of women, I've got a nice surprise for you. If you now think that you could at least try asking a girl out once, think again! Monash University writes:
A single incident of sexual harassment is enough to constitute an offence.
Of course, "sexual harassment" is to be understood in their very generous definition. Smile at a girl? Sexual harassment! Ask her out? Sexual harassment! Ask her out because she gives you "fuck me" eyes? Sexual harassment because she just wanted to feel desired for a moment or two! For more on that, go to Mating Selfishness and read Asking for a date now illegal, flirting as well… (Thanks for the link, Alek Novy!)

If only all of this were satire!

Instead of only lamenting the sordid status quo of feminist rhetoric, let's now talk for a moment about what should constitute sexual harassment instead. Surprisingly enough, Monash University has the answer to that:
Some types of harassment can be offences under the Criminal Law and should be taken to the police. They include: 
• physical molestation or assault;
• indecent exposure;
• sexual assault;
• stalking, and
• obscene communications (phone calls, letters, etc.)
I would be perfectly fine with just this list. Pretty much anything else, though, could be labelled as normal dating behavior. If you ask a girl out, and she giggles and denies, and then you ask her out again in two weeks, and she blushes and giggle some more, then you're not committing an act of sexual harassment but are dealing with an immature girl. Sadly, you can expect that kind of behavior no matter whether she's 16, 26, or 36. That's just how far too many women are. If you encounter such immaturity, then a woman like that should have absolutely no right to complain about a guy "sexually harassing" her. Dear women, if you're not interested, then just say "no" with a stern face for fuck's sake! Given the ambiguous communication patterns of many women, I don't see how a "reasonable person" could blame men for trying two or three times before moving on.

Not everything is sexual harassment, though. Monash University writes:
Flirting, attraction, sexual interaction or friendship that is invited, consensual and reciprocated and conducted in private or in a way that would not cause offence to others would not constitute sexual harassment.
Boy, just look at the structure of this sentence! I really would like to know what "flirting" is in the mind of feminists. I'm glad to read that "attraction" does not constitute sexual harassment. Just imagine chicks getting mad at you because they fancy you but you ignore them. Oh, wait, this reminds me of some drunk Jane Plain ...

I put "reasonable person" before in quotation marks. This was because Monash University uses this phrase when describing the "reasonable person test":
In determining if sexual harassment has occurred the question asked is "would a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, have anticipated that the person harassed would feel offended, humiliated or intimidated?
The power relationship between the parties is given serious consideration when determining the likelihood of sexual harassment. Age, gender, and position are all potential power issues.
Subsequently, they waffle about "power relationships" and similar hogwash. I guess this is what turned Michael Cain's remark to a woman that she was as tall as his wife into sexual harassment. Please note that you as a guy are fucked by default --- just because you are a guy. After all, you're part of the collective of men that has been subjugating women for millennia. I guess if you're a feminist, this is the only "reasonable" explanation there is. To them it's "obvious" that we men had all the power in the world, and if you pointed out that this only applied to the absolute elites of men, while the average man has had and still has a fate far worse than the average woman, they throw a fit, ask you whether you're a virgin or when the last time was that you got laid, or try mocking you for "mansplaining" things. But, hey, why bother about "reason" when you can just claim that you've got the right to redefine the term due to your unique insight into power structures. This now leads to the feminist concept of "rape culture", but let's talk about that some other time.

What's your opinion? Let me know in the comments below!


  1. "Flirting, attraction, sexual interaction or friendship that is invited, consensual and reciprocated and conducted in private or in a way that would not cause offence to others would not constitute sexual harassment."

    So now we have to worry about other people too? You're at a bar with a chick you're banging, and you pat her on the ass without her express invitation. She likes it, but some feminist watching thinks "OMG he touched her without her clear invitation! I am so offended!" You're now a sexual harasser! Am I reading this wrongly?

    1. No, you're not reading this wrongly. Because feminist haven't been kept in check for far too long, they've now abandoned all reason. The current situation is totally crazy.

    2. Feminists are the neo-victorians. You'll see one of the examples in my post listing insane sexual-harassment-entries is about this.

      One of the submitted stories is about a feminist being offended that another group of women was POTENTIALLY getting flirted with on a running path. She didn't even know or care what the relationship between the men and the women was. She was offended, because it happened in public, between two men and two women she DOESNT EVEN KNOW!

  2. Out of the hundreds of points one can make on this clusterfuck that is dating - thanks to female selfish laziness...

    I'll make this one point - most of this stuff stems from women's desire to "have their cake and eat it too".

    For example. Women love to selfishly subject men through the sadistic Tiger Mangling effect of their plausible deniability strategy.

    A woman wants to be able to have a romantic, dating and sexual life without EVER getting rejected, EVER publically failing and without EVER having to admit interest first.

    This is why women selfishly engage in plausible deniability. Your average woman wants to be able to show interest in the guy she likes in a way that she can plausibly deny. She will be friendly to him, but only insert a few little hints here and there that differentiate the interaction from a merely friendly interactions.

    This is so that she can always claim she had no interest in the guy if he doesn't make a move "Oh, I was just being friendly" she can always plausibly deny. Oh, I merely tripped over his feet and my boobs brushed by his shoulders on accident, I was not trying to get him to approach me, oh no no no...

    The best part, is these hints differ from woman to woman, and day to day. This is so that nobody can actually tell you "you got the hints, she's interested". The female of our species makes sure to cover its tracks and be forever be safe in plausible deniability.

    Ok, so far so good, you get to eat your cake. However, here's the "and have it" part.

    Women then ALSO want to be able to complain, whine and humiliate guys who guess wrong. This is the "and have it too" part of "eat your cake and have it too".

    Women (for SELFISH) reasons force men through the Tiger Mangling ritual of guessing and playing russian roullete, but then they also want it so no man is allowed to guess wrong.

    ANOTHER cake example...

    Aaron simplified it for women in this one sentence "Dear women, if you're not interested, then just say "no" with a stern face"

    I've said this exact same thing to women many times, and here's how the convo went

    her: this guy's has been interest for a while, ewww it's getting creepy
    me: well you're leading him on pretty well, I've yet to see you show him actual clear disinterest
    her: well well, i've given him hints
    me: you annoy me... go and next time he asks for something, look at him with a stern face and say "NO"

    (cake having part)

    her: But then I'd lose him as a friend, and it's not nice, and bla bla

    This is the "have your cake and eat it part too". Women know full well how to let men they're not interested... they just want to have their cake... I want him around, I want his attention, but without the sexuality. I don't mind being validated by a guy, I just want him to be a sexual eunuch when he validates me.

    Extremely man-hating feminist like Marcotte always try to reframe and paint women as saints. For example, Marcotte will tell you that the reason women give these mixed signals is FOR YOU. Yes, they're trying to protect YOUR feelings.

    How kind of those womanly saints. They lead you on for months, and then turn you into HR and get you fired, for your own good!!!

    We all know its bullshit. Women are doing it for themselves. Women don't communicate in vague language to protect the man, they're doing it for their own selfish reasons. They're protecting THEIR OWN egos.

    1. Talk about being vague in order to protect one's ego. I have a couple of hot friends, my friend's sisters, who are magnets for orbiters who pretend to be their buddies just to be part of their lives. I'm talking at least a half dozen well to do, professional men who lack the balls to make a move on these girls for fear of being rejected. But, according to you, these chicks should use their special, girl ESP and read these dudes' minds so the poor babies aren't led on by these bad, bad Femcunts.

      I know very few women who have the ability to tell anyone, let alone men, exactly what's on their mind. What you call wanting their cake and eating it, is just women being just as clueless as guys when it comes to the dating game. When you've been with a chick for five years and one day she leaves you and empties your bank account, that's leading someone on. If you call a girl at a bar not having the courage to tell you to fuck off, leading you on, then you are nothing but a butthurt little bitch.

    2. But, according to you, these chicks should use their special, girl ESP and read these dudes' minds so the poor babies aren't led on by these bad, bad Femcunts.

      Why do you LIE and invent shit? Either you misread what I wrote due to imbecility, or you're strawmanning on purpose.

      I am talking about when a woman KNOWS a guy is interested and he has OUTRIGHT EXPRESSED interest AND HAS made a move, but she REFUSES TO CLEARLY reject him and leaves him in ambigious zone.

      It's when women ANSWER "maybe", when the answer is "no" or "yes". I have had hundreds of female friends over the years. And they have all come to complain something along these lines

      chick: ehhh jack just won't quit trying, this is annoying
      me: why don't you JUST SAY NO and stop leading him on
      chick: oh I don't want to lose him as a friend, he's nice to have around

      You're purposefully shilling and misreading what I wrote - we are not talking about guys who won't make a single move or express any interest

      We are TALKING about the PLAUSIBLY DENIABLE VAGUE feedback women give DURING the courtship process AFTER a man has made a CLEAR MOVE.


      man - asks woman out
      woman - gives answer which is neither a clear yes, nor is it a clear no


      man - tries to kiss woman
      woman - pulls away WITHOUT MAKING IT CLEAR WHY, she doesn't specify whether it's because she wants you to try at a different location, or because she's not interested in kissing you


      There's nothing clueless about it. She knows full well she could say:

      "Oh, not now, perhaps later, in more privacy (wink)"

      THERE, HOW HARD IS THAT? HOW COMPLEX IS THAT? You know full well women could say this this, but REFUSE TO.

      REPEAT AFTER ME: "Oh, not now, perhaps later, in more privacy (wink)"

      A woman who does want you to try later will however NOT INFORM YOU, and you have no way of knowing if she's still around because she just wants to be social, or BECAUSE she wants you to try to kiss her again. SHE IS LITERALLY fucking setting you up for a sexual harassment charge. THAT IS DESPICABLE. It's SELFISH, and you have got to stop defending it.

      Same with ANY EXPLICIT MOVE. WOMEN WILL NOT SPELL OUT THEIR FEEDBACK AND ***WILL*** leave their feedback VAGUE. This is not clueless behaviour, this is selfishness.

      DONT BULLSHIT ME THAT WOMEN DONT KNOW THEY CAN SAY THIS. DONT FUCK WITH ME. You know full well that women will leave things ambigious for SELFISH reasons, because its a test. They want you to try again (which is ok, if it wasn't also SEXUAL HARASSMENT to try again on the wrong chick, and you're supposed to telepathically tell the difference between the two).

      You know how I know this? Because when I meet women who aren't vague, we become good friends. These women HATE the average woman, and often tell me they HATE the ambigious crap game women play.

      My best (female) friend: "What's with these chicks these days, why can't you just clearly say what you want or don't want!? I don't get chicks" And she's one herself, but she is 100% non-ambigious and respectfully lets men know where they stand, and men love her for it.

  3. Let me point out the most absurd bit of all this, its a paradox of collosal proportions.

    Will everyone please parse the use of the terms "invited" and "uninvited". Things like "uninvited touch" or "invited moves".

    Ok, here's the catch 22 of this. THE VERY ACT of INVITING is itself a move.

    - So in order for person A to make a move on person B, person A needs to have invited that move.

    - But if person A invited person B to make a move, then person A is themselves a HARASSER, because INVITING is itself a MOVE

    Does everyone get this? There is always a FIRST move, a move without precedent. SOMEONE has to make it.

    And don't assume that something like verbally giving permission/inviting gets you out of this catch 22-loop, because feminists have defined THAT as sexual harassment too. The very ACT of inviting or verbally asking is ALSO sexual harassment. In fact, even HINTING is sexual harassment.

    If you HINT at a woman that you're interested and would say yes to her asking you out, YOU ARE in fact harassing her, because your HINTING was uninvited.

    Everyone get that? MIND BLOWN.

    1. I don't know who you are, Alek Novy, but I really like your posts. They open my eyes.

  4. Boy, am I glad I'll not be attending Monash university during this lifetime. This:

    "Examples of sexual harassment:
    • uninvited touching;"

    Seriously? This is one of the foundations of communication.

    "• uninvited kisses or embraces;"

    These could include the infamous birthday kisses. Plus, people of certain cultures (read: cultures that are less ice cold than your average caucasian culture apparently has to be) will hug people even if they are not very familiar.

    Also, what's with the 'inviting'? Do these people say "please touch me"? That's something new entirely.

    Lastly, this: "• making promises or threats in return for sexual favours;"

    What exactly does this mean? Was I the only one thinking: "if you do me, I'll hold a knife to your throat"? OK, I'm not English. But even Google Translate seems to confirm my suspicion...

    1. Also, what's with the 'inviting'? Do these people say "please touch me"?

      Here's the most paradoxical bit, the VERY ACT of saying "please touch me" is ALSO harassment :D

      So, the person to touch first is a harasser, unless the previous person invited it... BUT INVITING ITSELF is harassment :D

      Mind... blown...

  5. Oh yes, and what about this gem:

    "Offensive and pornographic materials sent via email or text messages or stored on computers also constitute a form of sexual harassment. All are strictly prohibited at Monash University."

    So, no porn for you during your membership of Monash. Also, note the very broad phrasing: it doesn't matter that you use your own, private phone or pc for things Monash doesn't have anything to do with. It would also be interesting to know exactly WHO you're harassing when you use your computer for pr0n.

    In fact, this phrase mentions materials merely have to be 'offensive'. Never mind what that is (seems quite subjective to me!). Be careful though, because you're sexually harassing someone with it.

  6. Sorry for three separate comments though, but really, this:

    "Flirting, attraction, sexual interaction or friendship that is invited, consensual and reciprocated and conducted in private or in a way that would not cause offence to others would not constitute sexual harassment."

    I like this. The English language at its finest.

    Here, they admit you don't have to keep things private - as long as it doesn't cause offense TO OTHERS, you can do everything in the open! Hm, maybe I am interested in this university after all. That is, as long as the girls reciprocate my actions, because if for whatever reason they don't (even if I have my printed invitation with me), it's harassing someone, somewhere. Oh, and did anyone ever hear of a 'non-consensual friendship'? Well, it's sexually harassing here.

    Then to top it all off: note the "would not constitute". This implies there's room for doubt. So even if your actions are consensual etc. etc. at this moment, they may still be harassing. Good stuff!

  7. These feminists are hilarious. If anything perceived as flirting becomes illegal, then, since most things can be interpreted in any possible way by nutcases, it will mean that potentially every interaction between men and women are illegal. Yeah, you read it right: feminists are reinventing the shariah. Genius!

    Also, since the law doesn't discriminate between sexes, it will also outlaw flirting from girls to men. Men could start reporting women for being creeps because they FEEL offended. That would be fun.

    Lastly, I have a question about the legal aspect. I'm by no means an expert on the matter, but it seems to me that you have to prove an offence to condemn someone. As long as harassment was about saying or doing something specific, it was possible to prove it, as in "Joey pinched my butt while making a pig sound". But now that it is about the feeling the woman gets, some lawyers could just get in there and go "The crime is to offend this woman. Prove you were offended.". The lawyer could go with "you weren't really offended, but decided afterwards that you wanted money". It really bugs me: how would the woman prove she was offended, basis for a conviction?

    1. Since there is preferential treatment for women in the legal system, I'm sure things will just work out splendidly for them, despite any theoretical doubts.


      What happened with innocent until proven guilty principle?
      Is it really that easy to frame someone for a sexual assault?

    3. Yes Anonymous, sexual assault is frequently used as a way to frame people. And because the public will most probably favor the 'victim', this works pretty well.

      Innocent until proven guilty? Not if you mention either sexual assault or terrorism - then, depending on some factors of course, you're basically screwed.

  8. Here is a woman named Raven Williams that loves accusing men of sexual harassment:

  9. As for "female mating passivity," at least one "Truth and Reconciliation" blog recommends that women NOT approach men, because this filters out the men who don't "care enough." You can read about it here:

  10. And here we have a most recent article on Sexual Harassment at universities, featured in Germanys DER SPIEGEL magazine:

    1. Oh boy, this is just as painful to read as feminist drivel originating from English-speaking countries. I was surprised that Alice Schwarzer got mentioned. I thought she'd be dead by now but apparently she's alive and kicking. Wait, isn't the idiom "alive and lying through her teeth"? :P

  11. Hey Sleazy, Roosh seems to be (sort of) coming around to your view on things. All he needs to do now is realize that his ego is the only reason he thinks game works...


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.