I Am Confused Edition: Sexist for calling someone "stunning"?

[Secondhand Revenant]

Uggg... This story makes me roll my eyes and I feel like it shouldn't. Calling him out is one thing, but publicly shaming him this way seems like way to much overkill. Is what he did sexist? sure, but technically according to US law at least so is asking a co-worker if they have plans for the weekend. I mean she's going to get a lot of good attention over this for her I'm sure, but she could be ending a career over a single comment that frankly could have been a lot worse. I'm not defending what he did, because it was a stupid thing to do, but an apology isn't good enough for this? What does she want him to do? she just wants him to suffer? Your own personal catharsis is not social justice.

Well I might be more inclined to agree if he didn't try and make excuses. It sounds like he tried to sell it as he just meant the picture.

Also looking at this thread how many seem to think that kind of behavior is almost acceptable? Some people are defending it as 'human nature'. I kind of feel like this kind of thing should be treated a hit harshly to kind of beat the notion that its okay out of people

Well acceptable? Maybe not, but is it worth stringing him up and making an example of him? I mean its about context that makes this thing wrong right? Because Linkedin is a professional network, his behavior was inappropriate right? If this had been some other SNS sight would this have been acceptable? If this had been a bar, and he said to her "you look stunning can I buy you a drink?" would he be deserving of the same treatment? And it's also not like he said, "you look stunning, I might have a job for you". He made a comment about her appearance at a time that was inappropriate. It doesn't seem like it was more than that. A bit harshly would be telling him off, but she essentially made him a sex offender, and I don't think that's right. She might as well have accused him of groping her on the subway, accept those people don't get blasted all over the news.

In some other contexts I can understand being upset still, though not to the same degree. In some places it may make more sense. In general I think it's a bit sleazy to just hit on people you just met except for places where you generally think people are trying to meet up like that.

In other cases I would generally think just keeping it private makes sense. Not gonna post about some person you met in your personal life that's a bit sleazy on twitter complete with name

But he chose to do it in a more professional setting. When someone's trying to get a job it's utterly inappropriate to try and hit on them. I understand telling people about him because as a professional he should know better. He choose to do it in a place meant for more professional contact. I do not think it should just be swept under the rug. Also from the later comments it sounds like he's denying it was hitting on her. I'm not sure what the apology looked like but if he doesn't admit what he did wrong it's not much of an apology.

Also what's even happened to him? Lot of people talking about the mistake he chose to make when he probably knew better?

Judging by the message she received, she literally connected to a person she didn't know personally, most likely because of his title in an industry she works in. There is no indication that she is trying to get a job and like 90% of linkedin users it is likely she spamming invites. It's a smart way to use that platform but it is not as if this was a response to her having sent a resume.

No its not the same but what else do you expect she's doing it for. Maybe not a job from him but not just for lulz.

Also did she blast him on twitter before or after his apology? (as half assed as it may have been)

No idea actually. Hadn't considered that.

"Swept under a rug" and "written about in the telegraph" are to wildly different reactions. I certainly am not among those making any kind of case for his behavior. But what no one seems to care about is her actions on the other hand. If I was an employer I am now inclined to avoid her like the plague. She handled a personal offense with an extremely public outburst. Is that how she would behave at the first sign of conflict in a company? If you have harassment claims in the work place, the proper protocol is to talk to HR. She, based on past behavior, would post about it on twitter. As a lawyer as well, the ability to keep matters private should be of severe importance.

Did she send it to the telegraph herself or did she put it on twitter and they then noticed it?

Also I'd agree about dealing with it through HR to see consequences for his behavior if they worked together but there is no HR for her to go to.

This is the thing, from a social justice perspective we may be able to sit a cheer from the sidelines as a lecherous old man gets his ass handed to him by a professional young woman, but when you do something wrong and we all make mistakes, how are you going to feel when someone shames you in front of the world? And more over, what does this do for equality?

Well I'm not going to do this kind of crap.

What do you mean what does it do for equality? That it will change some people's minds against it in some way? Because I think those swayed by her reaction were probably not friendly in the first place. Honestly when it comes to these issues that's usually what I think. Those people swayed probably didn't care for the issue in the first place because if they change their minds for such a poor reason I really can't honestly believed they cared.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Look at this rationally, a 57 year old man inappropriately messaged a 27 year old on a professional website in a way that is annoying and frankly creepy.

Is it sexist? Not sure really, id say no, but at the same time is the problem here that the person being creeped on by an older "professional" used the "wrong word" to describe the creepiness? Is that the take away from this? Some guy was an asshole, some girl described his assholishness using the wrong words.

No compliments are not sexist. You think being complimented is what made her annoyed? Cmon try and understand her perspective and apply SOME context. You cant honestly believe compliments are being accused of being sexist here right? I cant possibly imagine how youd take that from this story.

is the only thing that makes it asshole-ish because it's a professional website meant for finding jobs? cause okay, I see that.

I'm also wondering whats wrong with a grown man essentially hitting on a full grown adult woman (in general, context of the website not withstanding). My own parents age difference is 30 yrs.

Do you consider hitting on random people regardless of where you meet them to be behavior that should be considered polite? I'd lean towards crass.

I mean isn't that how it works? I really wouldn't know. I'm a hermit these days.

You meet someone, if youre interested you throw signals out there, they either return those signals or they don't. Bar, work, whatever.

I mean cause if showing interest is a terrible social tresspass, I mean fucking aye, why bother trying for a date? It could all blow back up in your face.

You do get the difference between just hitting on someone and throwing out signals don't you? If so please don't try and conflate them like that. People can also have a brain and try to figure out if said signals are even likely to be welcome with a bit of observation first.

Honestly I really don't. Probably never will.

As in you can't think of a single way to show interest that is not just hitting on people? Really? =/

 

[Kameburger]

Uggg... This story makes me roll my eyes and I feel like it shouldn't. Calling him out is one thing, but publicly shaming him this way seems like way to much overkill. Is what he did sexist? sure, but technically according to US law at least so is asking a co-worker if they have plans for the weekend. I mean she's going to get a lot of good attention over this for her I'm sure, but she could be ending a career over a single comment that frankly could have been a lot worse. I'm not defending what he did, because it was a stupid thing to do, but an apology isn't good enough for this? What does she want him to do? she just wants him to suffer? Your own personal catharsis is not social justice.

Well I might be more inclined to agree if he didn't try and make excuses. It sounds like he tried to sell it as he just meant the picture.

Also looking at this thread how many seem to think that kind of behavior is almost acceptable? Some people are defending it as 'human nature'. I kind of feel like this kind of thing should be treated a hit harshly to kind of beat the notion that its okay out of people

Well acceptable? Maybe not, but is it worth stringing him up and making an example of him? I mean its about context that makes this thing wrong right? Because Linkedin is a professional network, his behavior was inappropriate right? If this had been some other SNS sight would this have been acceptable? If this had been a bar, and he said to her "you look stunning can I buy you a drink?" would he be deserving of the same treatment? And it's also not like he said, "you look stunning, I might have a job for you". He made a comment about her appearance at a time that was inappropriate. It doesn't seem like it was more than that. A bit harshly would be telling him off, but she essentially made him a sex offender, and I don't think that's right. She might as well have accused him of groping her on the subway, accept those people don't get blasted all over the news.

In some other contexts I can understand being upset still, though not to the same degree. In some places it may make more sense. In general I think it's a bit sleazy to just hit on people you just met except for places where you generally think people are trying to meet up like that.

In other cases I would generally think just keeping it private makes sense. Not gonna post about some person you met in your personal life that's a bit sleazy on twitter complete with name

But he chose to do it in a more professional setting. When someone's trying to get a job it's utterly inappropriate to try and hit on them. I understand telling people about him because as a professional he should know better. He choose to do it in a place meant for more professional contact. I do not think it should just be swept under the rug. Also from the later comments it sounds like he's denying it was hitting on her. I'm not sure what the apology looked like but if he doesn't admit what he did wrong it's not much of an apology.

Also what's even happened to him? Lot of people talking about the mistake he chose to make when he probably knew better?

Judging by the message she received, she literally connected to a person she didn't know personally, most likely because of his title in an industry she works in. There is no indication that she is trying to get a job and like 90% of linkedin users it is likely she spamming invites. It's a smart way to use that platform but it is not as if this was a response to her having sent a resume.

No its not the same but what else do you expect she's doing it for. Maybe not a job from him but not just for lulz.

A lot of people just connect for future reference. Linkedin is weird that way. I get invitations all the time from real people that I barely know for the most flimsy of networking reasons.

Also did she blast him on twitter before or after his apology? (as half assed as it may have been)

No idea actually. Hadn't considered that.

I don't know either, but it certainly has an impact, I feel.

"Swept under a rug" and "written about in the telegraph" are to wildly different reactions. I certainly am not among those making any kind of case for his behavior. But what no one seems to care about is her actions on the other hand. If I was an employer I am now inclined to avoid her like the plague. She handled a personal offense with an extremely public outburst. Is that how she would behave at the first sign of conflict in a company? If you have harassment claims in the work place, the proper protocol is to talk to HR. She, based on past behavior, would post about it on twitter. As a lawyer as well, the ability to keep matters private should be of severe importance.

Did she send it to the telegraph herself or did she put it on twitter and they then noticed it?

That's a good question as well, but either way when it's out there it's out there. If she didn't, and she did not intend for this to be that big, than it's irresponsible. If she did send it, then how vindictive is that?

Also I'd agree about dealing with it through HR to see consequences for his behavior if they worked together but there is no HR for her to go to.

True, but it is a bit more about how much she considers the process of conflict resolution right?

This is the thing, from a social justice perspective we may be able to sit a cheer from the sidelines as a lecherous old man gets his ass handed to him by a professional young woman, but when you do something wrong and we all make mistakes, how are you going to feel when someone shames you in front of the world? And more over, what does this do for equality?

Well I'm not going to do this kind of crap.

What do you mean what does it do for equality? That it will change some people's minds against it in some way? Because I think those swayed by her reaction were probably not friendly in the first place. Honestly when it comes to these issues that's usually what I think. Those people swayed probably didn't care for the issue in the first place because if they change their minds for such a poor reason I really can't honestly believed they cared.

Because now this guy, and maybe his firm of all white old man partners are going to, whether consciously or not, be uncomfortable around women candidates. They might scramble to find someone to fill some kind of token diversity spot, but even this kind of candidate is not getting fair treatment. It has nothing to do with people being swayed on the issue, because on the one hand you could look at this issue as an issue of a man being sexist toward a women in a professional context, but if this issue were dealt with privately, or at least the attempt was made, than maybe it would stay there. Now this is an issue about how you battle that kind of sexism and this woman chose to do that with napalm. So regardless of who cares or not about the issue that you're referring to, I'm referring to the realities of employment and professionalism, which this women has not only demonstrated that she will be a difficult employee, but now she is sending a shock wave into an already segregated industry that enforces an idea that they're not comfortable interacting professionally with this aggressive a woman.

Is that backwards and outdated problematic thinking? You're absolutely right it is. But that's the professional world. The professional world changes with results, not losing emotional control with cathartic lashing out.

 

[Strazdas]

Thats quite a can you opened here.

What this guy did was unprofessional.
What this gal did was sexist.

Ech, i guess i should explain.

He was making unprofessional messages on a professional website, making it unprofessional. There is nothing sexist about finding someone attractive nor is there in telling one this.

What she did was go on sexist rampage against perceived but nonexistent sexism blaming men for things they didnt do to strike her ego. If it was up to me such people would not be allowed to practice law.

 

[Lightknight]

@Ouroboros: Two responses to you at the bottom of this post.

Sexist? Not really. Finding someone attractive and stating it isn't sexist. Sexism is discrimination against women or attitudes that foster stereotypes/gender roles based on sex.

Sexual Harasser? Only if the individual continues after being told to stop or if the act was particularly egregious which this one wasn't (slapping the ass, for example, is automatically sexual harassment even if the individual stops when warned)

Men and women are going to find one another attractive. We are evolutionarily predisposed to it and are rewarded for acting on that predisposition. It would be foolish to condemn an individual for behaving in line with basic human nature.

That being said: Creepy? Sure. Who the hell uses linkedin for that? I guess the guy was just bummed that he can't use Ashley Madison anymore.

What's with this basic human nature nonsense. Finding someone attractive is a far cry from hitting on them. Basic human nature does not demand hitting on someone regardless of context. Stop trying to abuse the notion and pretend creeps lack any responsibility. If they can't control themselves put them down like rabid dogs (I don't belive they can't control themselves I find it to be a petty excuse that it is merely in their nature, as if they were animals).

What? How do you think we propagate as a species? We hit on people. Acting on attraction is vital to the survival of any species.

I despair at how it seems people can't seem to understand the separation between feeling something and acting on it.

The step you skip over is self control and responsibility for ones actions, regardless of feeling some petty urge.

He stated that he thought her picture was stunning. He didn't kill a puppy. He even did it somewhat tactfully by apologizing beforehand for the potential problem it could be. His problem was that he did it on a site intended for the workplace and then we as standard internet mobs go decided that he'd cupped her breasts while she was walking by in the workplace. Or that's the severity with which we're responding to this.

Oh don't try to obfuscate this by trying to act like words on here are a death sentence. Really are you going to shift this entire thing to the tone of the argument?

And apologizing beforehand isn't really tactful in this case. It just makes it a case of "You really knew better."

What I mean is, this guy has got to be one of the mildest offenders in existence if he's an offender at all. He hit on a girl in a professional space. That's not illegal and it isn't harassment either. The moment she expressed discontent he apologized and went on his way.

You're acting like he was found with a bag roofies or was aggressive towards her. He made a comment that her picture was stunning. This is not a sexual harasser. Talking about how people like this should be put down like rabbid dogs if they can't control themselves is just ridiculous. You were talking about something being petty earlier? That this is a debate at all regarding this instance is the epitome of pettiness.

Please, can we get some asshole who won't take no for an answer or some guy sending dick pics or an actual rapist to complain about? Some real offense that isn't just some guy saying that a girl has a nice picture? Because the former people are the scum you're thinking of and the latter isn't. You or people by and large are incorrectly associating a pickup line with actual offenses.

Ah did you mean to quote the guy who said it was evil? I'm not seeing that in my post. Or, well anywhere...

You said people should be put down if they can't control themselves. Is putting someone down a punishment you reserve for those that are not evil? Though I see you address this in the next comment so I'll move along.

Please do read what I actually said. Like how I don't believe people are that pathetic and I just think it's a terrible excuse. And I didn't say 'individuals that hit on people in ways I don't approve'. But not surprised you're using strawmen.

You said that people who can't suppress impulses you personally think they should suppress should be put down like dogs. You then went on to say that you don't think people can't control those things though. In any event, this kind of death penalty is some extreme hyperbole on your part. Maybe guys that are attracted to girls should just be castrated by your logic? Get the problem solved and it's far less deadly than just murdering them like animals.

It's hyperbole concerning how you pretty much argue that they're animals.

They are. Humans are literally animals. It is extreme naivety to argue that we are not greatly influenced by our animal instincts. We have a higher functioning brain to allow us to override many of our instincts, yes, but their influence will always be there.

You try and argue that they have as much fault as an animal acting on its natural actions. I'm simply using a bit of hyperbole and saying well if we can't hold them at fault for not properly responding to their urges maybe we should treat them like the animals they apparently are. If you are going to remove responsibility for actions then why not the benefits that come with being more than an animal in society

We don't put down a dog for wanting to fuck another dog. Let alone for walking over and sniffing another dog's ass. We do put down a dog for committing acts of actual violence against innocents which is not anything like what this guy did.

I'm not disputing the locale I'm disputing that little bit where you toss in attractiveness as if that's going to change my argument.

It is generally correct that were she attracted to the individual and available to act on said attraction that she would be flattered by it rather than appalled. That being said, it is possible that she would never appreciate this kind of interaction on that particular site because of its professional nature. But maybe she would from the right person? This guy may have thought he was that right person and that he would be an exception to her rule if she had one. When she showed that he was wrong he apologized and went away.

So all complaints about tone and crucifying him, a bunch of deflection and nothing to prove the statement?

And don't bother with the stuff about other issues. I'm not accomplishing anything here nor am I pretending to. I don't know if you think this somehow is, but fact is it isn't. Suggesting there are better battles is just a giant deflection concerning this one and suggests this is supposed to accomplish something bigger.

People who find the person hitting on them attractive most frequently take their words as a compliment as long as they are not being particularly crass or untoward which this guy's comments weren't. Only the location was the issue and probably his age (I'd find a grandma hitting on me somewhat cute but a middle-aged person kinda creepy). But he wasn't all like, "Damn guuuurl, you got some nice lady parts that I'd like to explore". Instead, he was all, "Um... excuse me... I know this could come across as unprofessional but your picture is pretty and I'd like to talk with you some more." Some elementary schoolyard nonsense sure but not predatory. He also happened to be way too old for her. I could see her taking offense to that as well. I personally find it gross that old men keep trying to be with young women all the time. I find it a little grosser how frequently they succeed as long as they have money. But that is their business and not mine as long as it continues to be between consenting adults.

A general your. You act as if they have to do this to show interest. They don't. I'm saying there are better ways to tell and thus expecting people not to just hit on others randomly is not some terrible burden that gives them no recourse.

Better ways do not make this way evil or worthy of scorn. Please bear in mind that apparently this woman had this happening to her regularly. I bet you that one of the previous people were actually inappropriate and would have deserved the full ire of the internet but this guy was just the final straw and the fact that he was a senior partner is the reason she decided to shame him publicly (by her own admission). But being a senior partner at a firm doesn't mean you don't get lonely and cry yourself to sleep at night. Maybe you're only a senior partner because you've failed at relationships too much for them to detract from work or maybe you just ignored relationships while climbing the corporate ladder.

Or, maybe this guy is married and a total asshole. Ugh, that would be frustrating to learn as I think cheaters deserve far more public disdain than they get but my comments as to the nature of his attempt here would still stand. I just wouldn't continue to defend it.

He fumbled through one he knew he shouldn't have even tried.

People are stupid when it comes to love an attraction. Can you really afford to throw out romanticism in all human interaction. Maybe they could have been uniquely right for each-other despite the age difference and would have lived happily ever after (until he died or whatever)? Romantic stories happen all the time because people take a risk. This one clearly didn't pay off.

But perhaps this is a major difference between you and me. I am very much the romantic. Do I think this particular story is romantic? No. But I do try to see the romance in these kinds of actions as long as they aren't being crass or rude. A coworker asking another coworker out is unprofessional, yes, but those are the most likely to result in marriage as I stated above and so are a risk with the highest potential return.

And I'm here responding to people who defend him. Whether it be by trying to say his behavior was natural and thus we shouldn't find fault with it or other ways such as acting like people who say what he did was wrong are condemning all attraction.

Absolutely no one is demonizing expressing attraction at all. Hitting on someone in your first interaction is not the grand sum of all ways to express attraction and it is the only thing being condemned at most.

Why do we feel we are just in condemning the way someone else does it? Some people, myself included, find pickup lines ridiculous. Yet they do work for some couples and those are generally both expressing attraction on the first interaction as well as being a bit crass. Maybe we're being puritanical when we decide to impose our own morals or beliefs of what preferred actions are acceptable and which aren't. At least a guy that hits on a girl in their first interaction is being upfront about what kind of guy he is so she won't be surprised down the road. I'm sorry that you see fit to demonize this kind of interaction just because you don't like it but it has worked for a huge number of people. Just most typically in social settings like a bar or wedding. Really in anything where their meeting again isn't guaranteed.

I get why she was put off by it. But he did everything right the moment he found out she wasn't into it.

His subsequent words don't seem to acknowledge his fault. It looks like more of a "Oh sorry total misunderstanding." which kind of falls flat given then not politically correct comment.

Was he supposed to film himself being flogged as an apology? She didn't appreciate it so he apologized and moved on. That's what is supposed to happen. He probably felt embarrassed and just wanted to back away quickly and so he did. You've got to think that what he was hoping for was a positive response of a person that was interested in seeing him more. That was his goal. He got shot down and responded exactly as he should have.

I'd consider the racist one pretty blame worthy anyways.

And in the sheriff case he had a duty to perform regardless. This guy had no reason to go through with it anyways if he recognized it would likely displease her. When someone says that and does it anyways it says they know it will upset someone but believe there is a more compelling reason to say it anyways.

My point is that you say "This may sound X but..." because you think acknowledging it excludes you from the rule. It's a common misconception that people regularly have. So I gave you two examples, racists that use it that we can both agree deserve the backlash and an officer who had every right to do it but likely should have given us a pass considering that it was only 5 over in a state where 15 over is generally permissible (we just happened to be passing through a well known speed trap in a poor county). Would you agree with this concept that people say that kind of line because they think it excludes them from the rule?

I mean, it doesn't. It seems to fail every time but people just keep doing it. I think though, it's important to know the intention of a person. This guy thought it could be politically incorrect but thought he would personally be excluded if he prefaced it that way. Typical grandpa antics.

Telling them that what they do is okay is only going to encourage them. At the very least they'll learn it is unwelcome and can burn them. Then maybe they'll think twice even if not for the right reasons.

It's only unwelcome to some people. All this teaches us is that mine sweeper has lessons to be applied to the real world.

Nobody has a right not to feel offended? That's messed up.

It's moreso that people have a right to feel offended but so what? Why does one person being offended mean that the person they're offended by is automatically in the wrong? It doesn't. Most things you're going to say or think would offend someone somewhere.

Sexist? Not really. Finding someone attractive and stating it isn't sexist. Sexism is discrimination against women or attitudes that foster stereotypes/gender roles based on sex.

Sexual Harasser? Only if the individual continues after being told to stop or if the act was particularly egregious which this one wasn't (slapping the ass, for example, is automatically sexual harassment even if the individual stops when warned)

Men and women are going to find one another attractive. We are evolutionarily predisposed to it and are rewarded for acting on that predisposition. It would be foolish to condemn an individual for behaving in line with basic human nature.

That being said: Creepy? Sure. Who the hell uses linkedin for that? I guess the guy was just bummed that he can't use Ashley Madison anymore.

What's with this basic human nature nonsense. Finding someone attractive is a far cry from hitting on them. Basic human nature does not demand hitting on someone regardless of context. Stop trying to abuse the notion and pretend creeps lack any responsibility. If they can't control themselves put them down like rabid dogs (I don't belive they can't control themselves I find it to be a petty excuse that it is merely in their nature, as if they were animals).

People who argue from basic instincts are usually people who can't control their baser instincts.

Not entirely sure who your comment is against or what your point is here. Who do you believe is arguing from basic instincts and who are you now claiming are unable to control said basic instincts? I would argue far more eloquently that one who conveys thinly veiled insults is far more prone to the whims of basic instincts than a behaviorist claiming that something is basic human nature.

Humans are attracted to one another and act on that attraction. It's the only reason we still exist as a species. If we did not have this single attribute then nothing else would work. I mean, I suppose we could have a policy of cumming in a box and sending it to strangers until one decides they want the package....

Are you a fan of Always Sunny In Philadelphia? Remember the early episode, The Nightman Cometh?

I've tried to get into the show multiple times. So popular and there are so many seasons that it would be great to have as a show to watch while I work out or whatever. But they're just too damned annoying, I just can't get into it and, like an Alzheimer patient, I just keep forgetting how I feel about them trying again... Even now that you've made the reference I'm already considering giving it another shot. Any recommendations on how to ease myself into the series would be appreciated.

 

[Lightknight]

Also did she blast him on twitter before or after his apology? (as half assed as it may have been)

No idea actually. Hadn't considered that.

I don't know either, but it certainly has an impact, I feel.

According to the article, she decided to blast him despite the apology because she did not feel it was adequate enough and that him being a partner meant he should have known better.

Look at this rationally, a 57 year old man inappropriately messaged a 27 year old on a professional website in a way that is annoying and frankly creepy.

Is it sexist? Not sure really, id say no, but at the same time is the problem here that the person being creeped on by an older "professional" used the "wrong word" to describe the creepiness? Is that the take away from this? Some guy was an asshole, some girl described his assholishness using the wrong words.

No compliments are not sexist. You think being complimented is what made her annoyed? Cmon try and understand her perspective and apply SOME context. You cant honestly believe compliments are being accused of being sexist here right? I cant possibly imagine how youd take that from this story.

is the only thing that makes it asshole-ish because it's a professional website meant for finding jobs? cause okay, I see that.

I'm also wondering whats wrong with a grown man essentially hitting on a full grown adult woman (in general, context of the website not withstanding). My own parents age difference is 30 yrs.

Do you consider hitting on random people regardless of where you meet them to be behavior that should be considered polite? I'd lean towards crass.

I mean isn't that how it works? I really wouldn't know. I'm a hermit these days.

You meet someone, if youre interested you throw signals out there, they either return those signals or they don't. Bar, work, whatever.

I mean cause if showing interest is a terrible social tresspass, I mean fucking aye, why bother trying for a date? It could all blow back up in your face.

You do get the difference between just hitting on someone and throwing out signals don't you? If so please don't try and conflate them like that. People can also have a brain and try to figure out if said signals are even likely to be welcome with a bit of observation first.

Honestly I really don't. Probably never will.

As in you can't think of a single way to show interest that is not just hitting on people? Really? =/

This is really a red herring. Why are the other ways you and I can think of to express attraction the only right ways? Methinks you're imposing your own personal beliefs on other people here as though they are the only right ways. That's something I'm guilty of in a lot of areas too and am personally trying to work on. But your way is not the universal right way. There isn't really an easy way to reach out to a person online and initiate discourse. It is always going to be awkward to initiate with a stranger. Some people prefer the band-aid approach and others prefer a slow pull. Personally, I don't want to waste my time dating a person I'm not already interested in but my way is not the right way, it is just my way.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Let's be honest. The only difference between an unwelcomed, creepy come-on and a fun, flirty compliment is whether or not the woman thinks the man making the comment is attractive. If someone like Ryan Gosling sent her the exact same message on LinkedIn. Would she calling him out for being "creepy" and objectifying her, or would she be bragging to her friends that Ryan Gosling thinks she looks stunning in that picture?

There should be legal repercussions for people who starts and engages in online/public shaming campaigns. Not specifically criminal laws, but also civil laws. Clearly, the damage the man caused the woman is considerably less than the damage she has inflicted on the man. Since this is a dispute between two lawyers, I hope the man sues and wins some kind of defamation suit against her.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Nobody has a right not to feel offended? That's messed up.

Of course this is the case. Because "taking offense" is entirely subjective.
There are legitimate opinions that offend me, but I can deal with it. If I wanted to never feel offended by anything I would have to never leave home.

What you just said doesn't have any bearing on saying that people don't have a right not to be offended. I have a right not to be offended by anything I want, even if you're actively trying to offend me. How would you even practically impinge on that right anyhow?

All right I worded it poorly. I meant that you don't have a right to never find something offensive.

 

[Gyrick]

I think that both sides are wrong for different reasons.

What Carter-Silk did was inappropriate, which I think is the general consensus of most of the people in this thread. However, what Proudman did was absolutely malicious. This may be just me, but I have REALLY big concerns about the culture of public shaming because the ramifications are just horrendous.

Remember what happened to that guy earlier this year who took a selfie with a Darth Vader cutout and it (nearly) ruined his life?
http://mashable.com/2015/05/11/darth-vader-selfie/

Essentially, whenever somebody does a "public shaming" technique, they are trying to destroy someone's life in some regard, and it usually ends very badly. Again, I don't approve of what Carter-Silk, and I know that women being judged on their appearance and commented on is an archaic mode of thought that really needs to be phased out. However, Proudman's need to publicly shame someone who crosses her is just problematic (to put it mildly). If I were her client and I found out this is how she handled things, I would get a new attorney ASAP.

 

[Gyrick]

I think that both sides are wrong for different reasons.

What Carter-Silk did was inappropriate, which I think is the general consensus of most of the people in this thread. However, what Proudman did was absolutely malicious. This may be just me, but I have REALLY big concerns about the culture of public shaming because the ramifications are just horrendous.

Remember what happened to that guy earlier this year who took a selfie with a Darth Vader cutout and it (nearly) ruined his life?
http://mashable.com/2015/05/11/darth-vader-selfie/

Essentially, whenever somebody does a "public shaming" technique, they are trying to destroy someone's life in some regard, and it usually ends very badly. Again, I don't approve of what Carter-Silk, and I know that women being judged on their appearance and commented on is an archaic mode of thought that really needs to be phased out. However, Proudman's need to publicly shame someone who crosses her is just problematic (to put it mildly). If I were her client and I found out this is how she handled things, I would get a new attorney ASAP.

Remember that kid who's VHS of him playing with a broom handle like a lightsaber, in his garage, went viral? By his own account, he had to drop out of school and it basically ruined his life.

You can't just point to the consequences of something and assume that the originator was malicious. There is a huge difference between malice, and irresponsibility with obscenely powerful new technology. Irresponsibility which by the way, only needs to manifest once, for an instant. You only need to make one bad decision, and you're never more than a heartbeat away from being able to permanently broadcast and publish that decision onto the internet forever.

tl;dr Not everyone is on internet forums, Reddit, and chans. Not everyone understands that "Public shaming" online is dangerous and disruptive. Most people have never heard of "Doxxing".

Actually, "Star Wars Kid" kind of proves my point, since the video was put up by people other than himself. Classmates found that video of him and posted it online to, in a sense, publicly shame him.

The problem with the whole public shaming tactic is that they really are trying to ruin someone's life by having a string of anonymous people fight there battles for them. From reading the article, the message she sent in reply to his, and based on her level of education, I still maintain that posting it on social media was a very calculated move, especially considering she is a human rights lawyer.

I will relent that most people who do this don't realize the ramifications, but it's still an overall bad idea, and I'm pretty convinced that Proudman knew exactly what she was doing.

 

[lacktheknack]

Lemme put it this way: If some 60-year-old cougar sent me a PM on LinkedIn telling me I looked reeeeeal handsome, I wouldn't be happy about it either.

 

[Gyrick]

Lemme put it this way: If some 60-year-old cougar sent me a PM on LinkedIn telling me I looked reeeeeal handsome, I wouldn't be happy about it either.

I'm in full agreement here. I think the article offers a twitter quote about a fellow colleague receiving inappropriate comments over LinkedIn. Why does anyone think that's appropriate, especially in (what is considered) a workplace setting? I want to say it's a combination of a "generational" and "gender" thing, but that's only a guess.

 

[Lightknight]

I think that both sides are wrong for different reasons.

What Carter-Silk did was inappropriate, which I think is the general consensus of most of the people in this thread. However, what Proudman did was absolutely malicious. This may be just me, but I have REALLY big concerns about the culture of public shaming because the ramifications are just horrendous.

Remember what happened to that guy earlier this year who took a selfie with a Darth Vader cutout and it (nearly) ruined his life?
http://mashable.com/2015/05/11/darth-vader-selfie/

Essentially, whenever somebody does a "public shaming" technique, they are trying to destroy someone's life in some regard, and it usually ends very badly. Again, I don't approve of what Carter-Silk, and I know that women being judged on their appearance and commented on is an archaic mode of thought that really needs to be phased out. However, Proudman's need to publicly shame someone who crosses her is just problematic (to put it mildly). If I were her client and I found out this is how she handled things, I would get a new attorney ASAP.

Remember that kid who's VHS of him playing with a broom handle like a lightsaber, in his garage, went viral? By his own account, he had to drop out of school and it basically ruined his life.

You can't just point to the consequences of something and assume that the originator was malicious. There is a huge difference between malice, and irresponsibility with obscenely powerful new technology. Irresponsibility which by the way, only needs to manifest once, for an instant. You only need to make one bad decision, and you're never more than a heartbeat away from being able to permanently broadcast and publish that decision onto the internet forever.

tl;dr Not everyone is on internet forums, Reddit, and chans. Not everyone understands that "Public shaming" online is dangerous and disruptive. Most people have never heard of "Doxxing".

The woman in question specifically released this information online with the plan for it to punish him for what he did. In her words she felt like his apology was not enough.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Look at this rationally, a 57 year old man inappropriately messaged a 27 year old on a professional website in a way that is annoying and frankly creepy.

Is it sexist? Not sure really, id say no, but at the same time is the problem here that the person being creeped on by an older "professional" used the "wrong word" to describe the creepiness? Is that the take away from this? Some guy was an asshole, some girl described his assholishness using the wrong words.

No compliments are not sexist. You think being complimented is what made her annoyed? Cmon try and understand her perspective and apply SOME context. You cant honestly believe compliments are being accused of being sexist here right? I cant possibly imagine how youd take that from this story.

is the only thing that makes it asshole-ish because it's a professional website meant for finding jobs? cause okay, I see that.

I'm also wondering whats wrong with a grown man essentially hitting on a full grown adult woman (in general, context of the website not withstanding). My own parents age difference is 30 yrs.

Do you consider hitting on random people regardless of where you meet them to be behavior that should be considered polite? I'd lean towards crass.

I mean isn't that how it works? I really wouldn't know. I'm a hermit these days.

You meet someone, if youre interested you throw signals out there, they either return those signals or they don't. Bar, work, whatever.

I mean cause if showing interest is a terrible social tresspass, I mean fucking aye, why bother trying for a date? It could all blow back up in your face.

You do get the difference between just hitting on someone and throwing out signals don't you? If so please don't try and conflate them like that. People can also have a brain and try to figure out if said signals are even likely to be welcome with a bit of observation first.

Honestly I really don't. Probably never will.

As in you can't think of a single way to show interest that is not just hitting on people? Really? =/

Enough that I don't even bother anymore. If someone's interested, they'll approach me. Less chance of making someone feel uncomfortable.

 

[Lightknight]

Right, but that's a far cry from wanting his life ruined.

I was just answering a question you posed, not making any evaluation as to the extent of her desire for him to be punished. However, you also shouldn't make any assumptions as to know that either. All we know is that she believed publicizing it would harm him and specifically did so with that intent. I can throw a rock at a person to harm them, if it just happens to knock them off balance and they fall to their deaths it doesn't change the fact that I caused it. Please understand, she is not a victim. He did not rape or molest her. He did not commit a crime and once rejected politely excused himself and left her alone. She committed the act of vengeance and made a victim of him.

Now, to be fair to her she did mention that this wasn't the first time she'd been hit on in the site. So she probably attributed all the things all the other guys said to this guy and felt like his higher position in a company made him a good scape goat for all of them. But he isn't responsible for people who were actually crass anymore than you'd be responsible for anyone else who ever asked out a person you want to ask out. He is only responsible for himself and the way he did this was extremely mild. The problem was that it is linkedin which some people use for professional reasons only (but others do not, mind you) and the fact that he was so old compared to her as to make the interaction awkward. But these aren't solid rules and are crossed all the time.

So all in all, I think the story here is really that this woman successfully used internet mob mongering to attack someone for one of the mildest pick up attempts in the history of men being able to talk to women unimpeded.

"Um... excuse me... this may be inappropriate but you've got a lovely picture...". ---> Not crass or rude.

 

[P-89 Scorpion]

Look at this rationally, a 57 year old man inappropriately messaged a 27 year old on a professional website in a way that is annoying and frankly creepy.

Is it sexist? Not sure really, id say no, but at the same time is the problem here that the person being creeped on by an older "professional" used the "wrong word" to describe the creepiness? Is that the take away from this? Some guy was an asshole, some girl described his assholishness using the wrong words and we focus on the later-bit?

No compliments are not sexist. You think being complimented is what made her annoyed? Cmon try and understand her perspective and apply SOME context. You cant honestly believe compliments are being accused of being sexist here right? I cant possibly imagine how youd take that from this story, this is about someone older in your field using a professional service to be creepy.

He sent a private 47 word message to her once, her response to publicly destroy his career and life. Yup sounds like a measured response.

Why publicise her response? why is that necessary? if he's doing it more than 3 times and the police take no interest if they don't see it as harassment then going public okay but one message really?

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

If there's one thing I've learned from this thread it's that most of The Escapist aren't going to be passing on their genetic lineage. Never approach anyone because it's creepy, never compliment them because it's sexist, never make eye contact because it might intimate to someone that you just *might* like them. Oh, and don't talk to anyone, they might think you want sex.

 

[Pinkilicious]

Look at this rationally, a 57 year old man inappropriately messaged a 27 year old on a professional website in a way that is annoying and frankly creepy.

Is it sexist? Not sure really, id say no, but at the same time is the problem here that the person being creeped on by an older "professional" used the "wrong word" to describe the creepiness? Is that the take away from this? Some guy was an asshole, some girl described his assholishness using the wrong words and we focus on the later-bit?

No compliments are not sexist. You think being complimented is what made her annoyed? Cmon try and understand her perspective and apply SOME context. You cant honestly believe compliments are being accused of being sexist here right? I cant possibly imagine how youd take that from this story, this is about someone older in your field using a professional service to be creepy.

He sent a private 47 word message to her once, her response to publicly destroy his career and life. Yup sounds like a measured response.

Why publicise her response? why is that necessary? if he's doing it more than 3 times and the police take no interest if they don't see it as harassment then going public okay but one message really?

Whatever happened to dueling like a good sport, I say! Bring back dueling for settling grievances!

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Uggg... This story makes me roll my eyes and I feel like it shouldn't. Calling him out is one thing, but publicly shaming him this way seems like way to much overkill. Is what he did sexist? sure, but technically according to US law at least so is asking a co-worker if they have plans for the weekend. I mean she's going to get a lot of good attention over this for her I'm sure, but she could be ending a career over a single comment that frankly could have been a lot worse. I'm not defending what he did, because it was a stupid thing to do, but an apology isn't good enough for this? What does she want him to do? she just wants him to suffer? Your own personal catharsis is not social justice.

Well I might be more inclined to agree if he didn't try and make excuses. It sounds like he tried to sell it as he just meant the picture.

Also looking at this thread how many seem to think that kind of behavior is almost acceptable? Some people are defending it as 'human nature'. I kind of feel like this kind of thing should be treated a hit harshly to kind of beat the notion that its okay out of people

Well acceptable? Maybe not, but is it worth stringing him up and making an example of him? I mean its about context that makes this thing wrong right? Because Linkedin is a professional network, his behavior was inappropriate right? If this had been some other SNS sight would this have been acceptable? If this had been a bar, and he said to her "you look stunning can I buy you a drink?" would he be deserving of the same treatment? And it's also not like he said, "you look stunning, I might have a job for you". He made a comment about her appearance at a time that was inappropriate. It doesn't seem like it was more than that. A bit harshly would be telling him off, but she essentially made him a sex offender, and I don't think that's right. She might as well have accused him of groping her on the subway, accept those people don't get blasted all over the news.

In some other contexts I can understand being upset still, though not to the same degree. In some places it may make more sense. In general I think it's a bit sleazy to just hit on people you just met except for places where you generally think people are trying to meet up like that.

In other cases I would generally think just keeping it private makes sense. Not gonna post about some person you met in your personal life that's a bit sleazy on twitter complete with name

But he chose to do it in a more professional setting. When someone's trying to get a job it's utterly inappropriate to try and hit on them. I understand telling people about him because as a professional he should know better. He choose to do it in a place meant for more professional contact. I do not think it should just be swept under the rug. Also from the later comments it sounds like he's denying it was hitting on her. I'm not sure what the apology looked like but if he doesn't admit what he did wrong it's not much of an apology.

Also what's even happened to him? Lot of people talking about the mistake he chose to make when he probably knew better?

Judging by the message she received, she literally connected to a person she didn't know personally, most likely because of his title in an industry she works in. There is no indication that she is trying to get a job and like 90% of linkedin users it is likely she spamming invites. It's a smart way to use that platform but it is not as if this was a response to her having sent a resume.

No its not the same but what else do you expect she's doing it for. Maybe not a job from him but not just for lulz.

A lot of people just connect for future reference. Linkedin is weird that way. I get invitations all the time from real people that I barely know for the most flimsy of networking reasons.

The ultimate goal is for a job though, yes? They connect because it may help them later.

Also did she blast him on twitter before or after his apology? (as half assed as it may have been)

No idea actually. Hadn't considered that.

I don't know either, but it certainly has an impact, I feel.

I do agree it does. Tbh I think it'd be worse if she blasted before she got a reply. If she got a half assed non-apology then yeah I'd expect it.

"Swept under a rug" and "written about in the telegraph" are to wildly different reactions. I certainly am not among those making any kind of case for his behavior. But what no one seems to care about is her actions on the other hand. If I was an employer I am now inclined to avoid her like the plague. She handled a personal offense with an extremely public outburst. Is that how she would behave at the first sign of conflict in a company? If you have harassment claims in the work place, the proper protocol is to talk to HR. She, based on past behavior, would post about it on twitter. As a lawyer as well, the ability to keep matters private should be of severe importance.

Did she send it to the telegraph herself or did she put it on twitter and they then noticed it?

That's a good question as well, but either way when it's out there it's out there. If she didn't, and she did not intend for this to be that big, than it's irresponsible. If she did send it, then how vindictive is that?

Well she just may not mind if it got that big. It's not like there is any particular recourse for her. I'm not sure I really care if some guy sending those kinds of comments gets shit for it myself. Does she really owe it to him not to reveal his improper conduct? He's not her friend or anyone she knows and it's his own fault anything bad occurred.

Also I'd agree about dealing with it through HR to see consequences for his behavior if they worked together but there is no HR for her to go to.

True, but it is a bit more about how much she considers the process of conflict resolution right?

Well what's proper conflict resolution here?

This is the thing, from a social justice perspective we may be able to sit a cheer from the sidelines as a lecherous old man gets his ass handed to him by a professional young woman, but when you do something wrong and we all make mistakes, how are you going to feel when someone shames you in front of the world? And more over, what does this do for equality?

Well I'm not going to do this kind of crap.

What do you mean what does it do for equality? That it will change some people's minds against it in some way? Because I think those swayed by her reaction were probably not friendly in the first place. Honestly when it comes to these issues that's usually what I think. Those people swayed probably didn't care for the issue in the first place because if they change their minds for such a poor reason I really can't honestly believed they cared.

Because now this guy, and maybe his firm of all white old man partners are going to, whether consciously or not, be uncomfortable around women candidates. They might scramble to find someone to fill some kind of token diversity spot, but even this kind of candidate is not getting fair treatment. It has nothing to do with people being swayed on the issue, because on the one hand you could look at this issue as an issue of a man being sexist toward a women in a professional context, but if this issue were dealt with privately, or at least the attempt was made, than maybe it would stay there. Now this is an issue about how you battle that kind of sexism and this woman chose to do that with napalm. So regardless of who cares or not about the issue that you're referring to, I'm referring to the realities of employment and professionalism, which this women has not only demonstrated that she will be a difficult employee, but now she is sending a shock wave into an already segregated industry that enforces an idea that they're not comfortable interacting professionally with this aggressive a woman.

Is that backwards and outdated problematic thinking? You're absolutely right it is. But that's the professional world. The professional world changes with results, not losing emotional control with cathartic lashing out.

I'm not sure trying to pacify him and his potential colleagues that also have issues works any better except for them to feel like they can still act the same but they just need to be discrete. I don't think either way would really change their minds.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Sexist? Not really. Finding someone attractive and stating it isn't sexist. Sexism is discrimination against women or attitudes that foster stereotypes/gender roles based on sex.

Sexual Harasser? Only if the individual continues after being told to stop or if the act was particularly egregious which this one wasn't (slapping the ass, for example, is automatically sexual harassment even if the individual stops when warned)

Men and women are going to find one another attractive. We are evolutionarily predisposed to it and are rewarded for acting on that predisposition. It would be foolish to condemn an individual for behaving in line with basic human nature.

That being said: Creepy? Sure. Who the hell uses linkedin for that? I guess the guy was just bummed that he can't use Ashley Madison anymore.

What's with this basic human nature nonsense. Finding someone attractive is a far cry from hitting on them. Basic human nature does not demand hitting on someone regardless of context. Stop trying to abuse the notion and pretend creeps lack any responsibility. If they can't control themselves put them down like rabid dogs (I don't belive they can't control themselves I find it to be a petty excuse that it is merely in their nature, as if they were animals).

What? How do you think we propagate as a species? We hit on people. Acting on attraction is vital to the survival of any species.

I despair at how it seems people can't seem to understand the separation between feeling something and acting on it.

The step you skip over is self control and responsibility for ones actions, regardless of feeling some petty urge.

He stated that he thought her picture was stunning. He didn't kill a puppy. He even did it somewhat tactfully by apologizing beforehand for the potential problem it could be. His problem was that he did it on a site intended for the workplace and then we as standard internet mobs go decided that he'd cupped her breasts while she was walking by in the workplace. Or that's the severity with which we're responding to this.

Oh don't try to obfuscate this by trying to act like words on here are a death sentence. Really are you going to shift this entire thing to the tone of the argument?

And apologizing beforehand isn't really tactful in this case. It just makes it a case of "You really knew better."

What I mean is, this guy has got to be one of the mildest offenders in existence if he's an offender at all. He hit on a girl in a professional space. That's not illegal and it isn't harassment either. The moment she expressed discontent he apologized and went on his way.

It's not illegal or harassment to post the message on twitter either if that's your metric for this kind of thing. I suspect it's not the real metric and simply a way to try to handwave away *this* persons behavior.

You're acting like he was found with a bag roofies or was aggressive towards her. He made a comment that her picture was stunning. This is not a sexual harasser. Talking about how people like this should be put down like rabbid dogs if they can't control themselves is just ridiculous. You were talking about something being petty earlier? That this is a debate at all regarding this instance is the epitome of pettiness.

No I'm not. Will you quit this nonsense tone argument and stop trying to tell me how I am supposedly acting?

Its only as ridiculous as the argument in replied to that pretended they had no control.

I agree. It's petty to complain that she called it sexism.

Please, can we get some asshole who won't take no for an answer or some guy sending dick pics or an actual rapist to complain about? Some real offense that isn't just some guy saying that a girl has a nice picture? Because the former people are the scum you're thinking of and the latter isn't. You or people by and large are incorrectly associating a pickup line with actual offenses.

Would you also like to order some starving children from Africa to not in fact reply about the topic at hand and talk about how there are worse things? That's nothing but a distraction. It's not as if the other issues would be solved by talking about them here either.

Ah did you mean to quote the guy who said it was evil? I'm not seeing that in my post. Or, well anywhere...

You said people should be put down if they can't control themselves. Is putting someone down a punishment you reserve for those that are not evil? Though I see you address this in the next comment so I'll move along.

Please do read what I actually said. Like how I don't believe people are that pathetic and I just think it's a terrible excuse. And I didn't say 'individuals that hit on people in ways I don't approve'. But not surprised you're using strawmen.

You said that people who can't suppress impulses you personally think they should suppress should be put down like dogs. You then went on to say that you don't think people can't control those things though. In any event, this kind of death penalty is some extreme hyperbole on your part. Maybe guys that are attracted to girls should just be castrated by your logic? Get the problem solved and it's far less deadly than just murdering them like animals.

It's hyperbole concerning how you pretty much argue that they're animals.

They are. Humans are literally animals. It is extreme naivety to argue that we are not greatly influenced by our animal instincts. We have a higher functioning brain to allow us to override many of our instincts, yes, but their influence will always be there.

Do I need to explain how people use the term animal to you or can we avoid this attempted derail into petty semantics?

Influences are irrelevant to the fact he made a choice there and can be held responsible for it.

You try and argue that they have as much fault as an animal acting on its natural actions. I'm simply using a bit of hyperbole and saying well if we can't hold them at fault for not properly responding to their urges maybe we should treat them like the animals they apparently are. If you are going to remove responsibility for actions then why not the benefits that come with being more than an animal in society

We don't put down a dog for wanting to fuck another dog. Let alone for walking over and sniffing another dog's ass. We do put down a dog for committing acts of actual violence against innocents which is not anything like what this guy did.

We don't give it a job either or complain if it loses one.

I'm not disputing the locale I'm disputing that little bit where you toss in attractiveness as if that's going to change my argument.

It is generally correct that were she attracted to the individual and available to act on said attraction that she would be flattered by it rather than appalled. That being said, it is possible that she would never appreciate this kind of interaction on that particular site because of its professional nature. But maybe she would from the right person? This guy may have thought he was that right person and that he would be an exception to her rule if she had one. When she showed that he was wrong he apologized and went away.

Do you have any evidence for your maybe or is this pure speculation that seems to have little actual relevance?

So all complaints about tone and crucifying him, a bunch of deflection and nothing to prove the statement?

And don't bother with the stuff about other issues. I'm not accomplishing anything here nor am I pretending to. I don't know if you think this somehow is, but fact is it isn't. Suggesting there are better battles is just a giant deflection concerning this one and suggests this is supposed to accomplish something bigger.

People who find the person hitting on them attractive most frequently take their words as a compliment as long as they are not being particularly crass or untoward which this guy's comments weren't. Only the location was the issue and probably his age (I'd find a grandma hitting on me somewhat cute but a middle-aged person kinda creepy). But he wasn't all like, "Damn guuuurl, you got some nice lady parts that I'd like to explore". Instead, he was all, "Um... excuse me... I know this could come across as unprofessional but your picture is pretty and I'd like to talk with you some more." Some elementary schoolyard nonsense sure but not predatory. He also happened to be way too old for her. I could see her taking offense to that as well. I personally find it gross that old men keep trying to be with young women all the time. I find it a little grosser how frequently they succeed as long as they have money. But that is their business and not mine as long as it continues to be between consenting adults.

Where exactly are you going with this?

A general your. You act as if they have to do this to show interest. They don't. I'm saying there are better ways to tell and thus expecting people not to just hit on others randomly is not some terrible burden that gives them no recourse.

Better ways do not make this way evil or worthy of scorn.

Quit with the strawmen. I never said a better way was the reason it was worthy of scorn.

You and a lot of others act as if condemning this way condemns it as a whole. I am pointing out this is nothing but a lie. I never said it was the reason it was worthy of scorn so quit it.

Please bear in mind that apparently this woman had this happening to her regularly. I bet you that one of the previous people were actually inappropriate and would have deserved the full ire of the internet but this guy was just the final straw and the fact that he was a senior partner is the reason she decided to shame him publicly (by her own admission). But being a senior partner at a firm doesn't mean you don't get lonely and cry yourself to sleep at night. Maybe you're only a senior partner because you've failed at relationships too much for them to detract from work or maybe you just ignored relationships while climbing the corporate ladder.

Are you seriously trying a hypothetical pity story as part of an argument? I don't care if he cries himself to sleep at night, sobbing into a stuffed bear he kept since childhood or whatever. His own personal pity story doesn't factor into it at all. All that matters is the action and his intent.

He fumbled through one he knew he shouldn't have even tried.

People are stupid when it comes to love an attraction. Can you really afford to throw out romanticism in all human interaction. Maybe they could have been uniquely right for each-other despite the age difference and would have lived happily ever after (until he died or whatever)? Romantic stories happen all the time because people take a risk. This one clearly didn't pay off.

I like how you make excuses like 'people are stupid when it comes to this' and then complain about her reaction. People get angry when jerk keep pulling the shit he tried. Where's your defense of her?

Afford to throw all romanticism out? Yes we can but I didn't even call for that so less straw please.

But perhaps this is a major difference between you and me. I am very much the romantic. Do I think this particular story is romantic? No. But I do try to see the romance in these kinds of actions as long as they aren't being crass or rude. A coworker asking another coworker out is unprofessional, yes, but those are the most likely to result in marriage as I stated above and so are a risk with the highest potential return.

I am not a romantic. But even then I can tell condemning this is not the same as condemning romance. The suggestion is absurd, annoying that I must keep correcting absurd over reactions, and frankly insulting that you seem to keep thinking I make immensely broad statements when talking about a specific situation.

And I'm here responding to people who defend him. Whether it be by trying to say his behavior was natural and thus we shouldn't find fault with it or other ways such as acting like people who say what he did was wrong are condemning all attraction.

Absolutely no one is demonizing expressing attraction at all. Hitting on someone in your first interaction is not the grand sum of all ways to express attraction and it is the only thing being condemned at most.

Why do we feel we are just in condemning the way someone else does it? Some people, myself included, find pickup lines ridiculous. Yet they do work for some couples and those are generally both expressing attraction on the first interaction as well as being a bit crass.

"It might work" is the defense of those who selfishly only consider their own benefit and not whether it's polite when it comes to all the people who didn't want to hear it.

Maybe we're being puritanical when we decide to impose our own morals or beliefs of what preferred actions are acceptable and which aren't.

Are you going to apply that to complaining about her tweets now? I find this a paper thin defense that tends not to be applied evenly.

If you want to never voice an opinion on such issues again feel free. I don't buy into the idea of refusing to make judgements. And not wanting to get random pick up lines isn't puritianical.

At least a guy that hits on a girl in their first interaction is being upfront about what kind of guy he is so she won't be surprised down the road. I'm sorry that you see fit to demonize this kind of interaction just because you don't like it but it has worked for a huge number of people. Just most typically in social settings like a bar or wedding. Really in anything where their meeting again isn't guaranteed.

War and injustice do wonders for pepole too.

I really don't care if it works or not. So what if it does sometimes? That's not any kind of argument for why it is okay, it's a tangent that appears to have zero relevance. I hope it is not in fact an attempted defense because 'It works' is blatantly not the point of contention

I get why she was put off by it. But he did everything right the moment he found out she wasn't into it.

I disagree that lying and trying to suggest it was just about the qualities of the photo itself is 'everything right'

His subsequent words don't seem to acknowledge his fault. It looks like more of a "Oh sorry total misunderstanding." which kind of falls flat given then not politically correct comment.

Was he supposed to film himself being flogged as an apology? She didn't appreciate it so he apologized and moved on. That's what is supposed to happen. He probably felt embarrassed and just wanted to back away quickly and so he did. You've got to think that what he was hoping for was a positive response of a person that was interested in seeing him more. That was his goal. He got shot down and responded exactly as he should have.

So do I need to explain the area between flogging and lying about what you did to minimize it? Its amazing the way you jump from extreme to extreme. It's a real work out trying to keep you honest here. Really.

I'd consider the racist one pretty blame worthy anyways.

And in the sheriff case he had a duty to perform regardless. This guy had no reason to go through with it anyways if he recognized it would likely displease her. When someone says that and does it anyways it says they know it will upset someone but believe there is a more compelling reason to say it anyways.

My point is that you say "This may sound X but..." because you think acknowledging it excludes you from the rule. It's a common misconception that people regularly have. So I gave you two examples, racists that use it that we can both agree deserve the backlash and an officer who had every right to do it but likely should have given us a pass considering that it was only 5 over in a state where 15 over is generally permissible (we just happened to be passing through a well known speed trap in a poor county). Would you agree with this concept that people say that kind of line because they think it excludes them from the rule?

Not always no. The racist probably genuinely thinks it isn't racist regardless. (Because they're likely n idiot bit I digress)

People can simply think others will mistakenly take it that way and want to make their intent clear. Whether it's a mistake or not.

I mean, it doesn't. It seems to fail every time but people just keep doing it. I think though, it's important to know the intention of a person. This guy thought it could be politically incorrect but thought he would personally be excluded if he prefaced it that way. Typical grandpa antics.

This is quite a leap into his head. I don't buy it.

Telling them that what they do is okay is only going to encourage them. At the very least they'll learn it is unwelcome and can burn them. Then maybe they'll think twice even if not for the right reasons.

It's only unwelcome to some people. All this teaches us is that mine sweeper has lessons to be applied to the real world.

And if you died playing the game no one would play it. If you get burned sufficiently bad them you don't try it.