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

[omega 616]

HOWEVER, even though that is true (and I am sure I am about to get a lot of quotes saying other wise) men are the main problem.

How often do you see/hear men complimenting each other the same way? The OP says he "I would say it to guys too" really? What do you say "hi gorgeous"? "looking ripped today!"? Ever send a message to a random guy on a social site and tell him he looks stunning? what about handsome?

Looks like you haven't met me then. Hi, I'm Para. As well as complimenting women, I also do it to men openly. Saying if a guy was handsome, beautiful, stunning and gorgeous. Don't assume you know me when you really don't.

I was using the royal you, not the specific you but using you (specifically) as an example, if that makes a lick of sense. I assumed you were not entirely straight when you said what you said, either bi or whatever.

Though I have zero clue what you mean when you say "I'm para" 'cos to me there are only 4 sexual preferences.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

While the guy comes across as a creep, I doubt sexism motivated his remark.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

HOWEVER, even though that is true (and I am sure I am about to get a lot of quotes saying other wise) men are the main problem.

How often do you see/hear men complimenting each other the same way? The OP says he "I would say it to guys too" really? What do you say "hi gorgeous"? "looking ripped today!"? Ever send a message to a random guy on a social site and tell him he looks stunning? what about handsome?

Looks like you haven't met me then. Hi, I'm Para. As well as complimenting women, I also do it to men openly. Saying if a guy was handsome, beautiful, stunning and gorgeous. Don't assume you know me when you really don't.

I was using the royal you, not the specific you but using you (specifically) as an example, if that makes a lick of sense. I assumed you were not entirely straight when you said what you said, either bi or whatever.

Though I have zero clue what you mean when you say "I'm para" 'cos to me there are only 4 sexual preferences.

It's his username shortened.

 

[Dango]

It just seems like the guy thought a quick way of getting her to want to work with him was to flatter her or to appeal to her ego (which to be fair, works in RPGs all the time).

I mean yeah it was a dumb move but it's an overreaction by her and not really news worthy.

Aside from what looks like a throwaway last line that's pretty much a 'Anyways good to meet you' I'm not seeing anything in it that looks like it's trying to get a serious working relationship

Considering he's a senior partner and she's working for her PHD I don't think it particularly makes sense to try and butter her up to offer her work.

I also wonder how you interpret something preceded with 'I know this is really politically incorrect' to be an attempt to butter someone up. It looks like you give him the total benefit of the doubt and none to her.

I just think her reaction just feels like she was looking for a reason to be angry or offended. I think they both made mistakes, though reading the article my response is along the lines of: I'm happy she was willing to express her anger over her interpretation of the message, but I don't necessarily agree with her interpretation of it." I'm willing to see things from both persons' points of view (pluralization is weird) and doing so doesn't make me lean towards her. My old experience of being totally socially inept makes me more willing to believe this man is just kind of stupid and worded things badly.

So from his point of view you twist it into trying to be working together despite the entire context of the message. And his later clear lie that he was commenting on the compisition of the photo (it's a pretty obvious lie going by the political correctness comment)

Whereas she explicitly says she gets a lot of stupid messages and is tired of it. But you try to see it from her side so you decide the truth is she was looking for an excuse to be offended

Really.

That's on top of how I think the release of a message that was assumed to be private is somewhat cruel, even given the circumstances, given how willing the internet is willing to after anything, that's something I think was irresponsible of her.

Oh if you want to talk about context maybe you should consider how often women get creepy messages like that.

I'm trying to be nice here and I think you're tone (from what I can tell from words on a computer screen) is unwarranted. I sympathize with both of them, and I think that's correct way to look at things. They both did things wrong here, and I don't think there's any sense in anyone being so angry over such a minor internet scuffle that will, as it should, barely hold any attention from both of their memories in a matter of weeks.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

While the guy comes across as a creep, I doubt sexism motivated his remark.

It doesn't have to motivate it. It could be that sexism is what makes him think it's okay to address a woman like that in a professional context.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It just seems like the guy thought a quick way of getting her to want to work with him was to flatter her or to appeal to her ego (which to be fair, works in RPGs all the time).

I mean yeah it was a dumb move but it's an overreaction by her and not really news worthy.

Aside from what looks like a throwaway last line that's pretty much a 'Anyways good to meet you' I'm not seeing anything in it that looks like it's trying to get a serious working relationship

Considering he's a senior partner and she's working for her PHD I don't think it particularly makes sense to try and butter her up to offer her work.

I also wonder how you interpret something preceded with 'I know this is really politically incorrect' to be an attempt to butter someone up. It looks like you give him the total benefit of the doubt and none to her.

I just think her reaction just feels like she was looking for a reason to be angry or offended. I think they both made mistakes, though reading the article my response is along the lines of: I'm happy she was willing to express her anger over her interpretation of the message, but I don't necessarily agree with her interpretation of it." I'm willing to see things from both persons' points of view (pluralization is weird) and doing so doesn't make me lean towards her. My old experience of being totally socially inept makes me more willing to believe this man is just kind of stupid and worded things badly.

So from his point of view you twist it into trying to be working together despite the entire context of the message. And his later clear lie that he was commenting on the compisition of the photo (it's a pretty obvious lie going by the political correctness comment)

Whereas she explicitly says she gets a lot of stupid messages and is tired of it. But you try to see it from her side so you decide the truth is she was looking for an excuse to be offended

Really.

That's on top of how I think the release of a message that was assumed to be private is somewhat cruel, even given the circumstances, given how willing the internet is willing to after anything, that's something I think was irresponsible of her.

Oh if you want to talk about context maybe you should consider how often women get creepy messages like that.

I'm trying to be nice here and I think you're tone (from what I can tell from words on a computer screen) is unwarranted. I sympathize with both of them, and I think that's correct way to look at things. They both did things wrong here, and I don't think there's any sense in anyone being so angry over such a minor internet scuffle that will, as it should, barely hold any attention from both of their memories in a matter of weeks.

I think you're giving way more credit to one view.

I mean I find it hard to believe that claiming she was looking for a reason to be angry or offended is supposed to be *sympathy*

 

[Olas]

I think regardless of your thoughts on the act itself, we can probably all agree that calling it "sexist" is incorrect. Complementing someone's appearance is not inherently sexual. I hear women call other women "stunning" periodically without any sexual basis, so why is it different if this guy does it? The word can even be used on inanimate objects.

Ya, this isn't sexism, not by any practical definition that I can think of.

So you don't believe in context to comments? One guy calls his friend an idiot so any time he's called an idiot and gets mad it's just incomprehensible why he doesn't like the word then since he didn't mind it before?

When did I say I don't believe in context? I don't believe this is sexist in the context it occurred in.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

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.

One incident is an isolated instance with modest if any real ramifications. The other is a wide problem about our culture of hyper-sensitivity and of calling normal behavior (it's normal for 57 year old men to wanna have sex with 27 year old women) "sexual harassment".

You're never gonna change the natural law of men being sexual beings and thinking of women in a sexual context some of the time. No matter what. To even try is wholly abnormal, irrational and wrong. You also don't need to try any harder to define the behavior as "bad" because it is already fully defined as that. Men do it anyways. Men WILL do it anyways no matter how much worse the definition is, simply because that is nature.


All of the above being facts, one should not get to use the wrong words unquestioned. Words mean things. It's a bigger issue to try to appropriate terms to serve your agenda. That some older guy that you're not attracted to politely hit on you is pretty insignificant.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I think regardless of your thoughts on the act itself, we can probably all agree that calling it "sexist" is incorrect. Complementing someone's appearance is not inherently sexual. I hear women call other women "stunning" periodically without any sexual basis, so why is it different if this guy does it? The word can even be used on inanimate objects.

Ya, this isn't sexism, not by any practical definition that I can think of.

So you don't believe in context to comments? One guy calls his friend an idiot so any time he's called an idiot and gets mad it's just incomprehensible why he doesn't like the word then since he didn't mind it before?

When did I say I don't believe in context? I don't believe this is sexist in the context it occurred in.

Your argument was that you've seen other women call women stunning. Therefore... what it can't be sexual? When done by a total stranger. On a professional website. Preceded by him saying he knows it isn't politically correct. Later followed by him claiming he was talking about the compisition of the photo, which doesn't really mesh with the politically incorrect precursor statement.

Makes as much sense as saying you see friends call each other idiot in a non-insulting manner, why can't total strangers.

Looks like totally ignoring the existence of context to me.

 

[Olas]

I think regardless of your thoughts on the act itself, we can probably all agree that calling it "sexist" is incorrect. Complementing someone's appearance is not inherently sexual. I hear women call other women "stunning" periodically without any sexual basis, so why is it different if this guy does it? The word can even be used on inanimate objects.

Ya, this isn't sexism, not by any practical definition that I can think of.

I think you can argue that it is sexist, among other things.

You could argue that the earth is flat too. Doesn't mean the argument is good.

 

[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 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.

One incident is an isolated instance with modest if any real ramifications. The other is a wide problem about our culture of hyper-sensitivity and of calling normal behavior (it's normal for 57 year old men to wanna have sex with 27 year old women) "sexual harassment".

Wanting to is different from saying anything to her. If they can't help themselves we can put them in cages if you prefer? Plenty of people can, if the rest want to claim to have the self control of a dog they can't be treated like it.

You're never gonna change the natural law of men being sexual beings and thinking of women in a sexual context some of the time. No matter what. To even try is wholly abnormal, irrational and wrong. You also don't need to try any harder to define the behavior as "bad" because it is already fully defined as that. Men do it anyways. Men WILL do it anyways no matter how much worse the definition is, simply because that is nature.

When you look past the pseudoscience here, you keep dishonestly trying to inflate thought with action.

Humans have self control. They can use it.

All of the above being facts, one should not get to use the wrong words unquestioned. Words mean things. It's a bigger issue to try to appropriate terms to serve your agenda that some older guy that you're not attracted you politely hit on you.

You mean like you and the word natural?

 

[Dango]

*Snip for size*

I mean I find it hard to believe that claiming she was looking for a reason to be angry or offended is supposed to be *sympathy*

Let me elaborate on that. I think she does likely receive a lot of unwarranted messages based on being a woman, and because of that she had a much stronger chance of reacting to this message the way she did. It's stress the way I think of it, and this message was a fair reason to let that stress out. I can relate to that, it makes sense. Think of it as the straw that broke the camel's back. I get why she reacted to the message the way she did, and if I were in her situation I probably would have done the same thing, but given that I'm not I think I can see things from a more reasonable perspective. Hopefully that explains things.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

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.

One incident is an isolated instance with modest if any real ramifications. The other is a wide problem about our culture of hyper-sensitivity and of calling normal behavior (it's normal for 57 year old men to wanna have sex with 27 year old women) "sexual harassment".

Wanting to is different from saying anything to her. If they can't help themselves we can put them in cages if you prefer? Plenty of people can, if the rest want to claim to have the self control of a dog they can't be treated like it.

You're never gonna change the natural law of men being sexual beings and thinking of women in a sexual context some of the time. No matter what. To even try is wholly abnormal, irrational and wrong. You also don't need to try any harder to define the behavior as "bad" because it is already fully defined as that. Men do it anyways. Men WILL do it anyways no matter how much worse the definition is, simply because that is nature.

When you look past the pseudoscience here, you keep dishonestly trying to inflate thought with action.

Humans have self control. They can use it.

All of the above being facts, one should not get to use the wrong words unquestioned. Words mean things. It's a bigger issue to try to appropriate terms to serve your agenda that some older guy that you're not attracted you politely hit on you.

You mean like you and the word natural?

Not saying something doesn't change the fact that the desire behind it is there. That's what is being attacked when you call this behavior sexual harassment. By focusing on the rude (not harassing, simply "rude") act of speaking out ones thoughts, one tackles the symptoms but not the disease.

To maximize your logic, one would then have to move on to attacking this natural urge, were they to be consistent with this line of thought. That, that is the actual issue. That is what is really being tackled here. That is why people use special terms and don't simply call rude behavior rude. (which we all agree that it is) Nobody objects to people who are rude being considered rude people and whatever social ramifications may follow that, though locking them up is quite extreme if I may say so.

I speak of the urge to say the comments with the term natural, not of the act of saying them.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

"the natural law"
All of the above being facts, one should not get to use the wrong words unquestioned. Words mean things. It's a bigger issue to try to appropriate terms to serve your agenda. That some older guy that you're not attracted to politely hit on you is pretty insignificant.

I am a biologist. Never. Ever. Use that phrase again please when discussing sociology. It kills us inside. Seriously. Words are important, and if they are dont use crap like that, no one with education in any science will accept evo-psych stuff like that, its usually entirely BS and almost painful to read.

Its fairly insignificant on a societal basis but it shows a total lack of respect on a personal level to use a professional space to hit on someone. There is no polite way to so crassly hit on someone its rude in almost every context. This included. She had every right to stand up for herself and it most certainly is arguably sexist if she puts up with it regularly from men on the website, implying her gender is the reason she is receiving these messages. I know if i regularly received creepy messages from (only) woman in a totally inappropriate environment id be tempted to correlate the genders to the act also.

 

[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 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.

One incident is an isolated instance with modest if any real ramifications. The other is a wide problem about our culture of hyper-sensitivity and of calling normal behavior (it's normal for 57 year old men to wanna have sex with 27 year old women) "sexual harassment".

Wanting to is different from saying anything to her. If they can't help themselves we can put them in cages if you prefer? Plenty of people can, if the rest want to claim to have the self control of a dog they can't be treated like it.

You're never gonna change the natural law of men being sexual beings and thinking of women in a sexual context some of the time. No matter what. To even try is wholly abnormal, irrational and wrong. You also don't need to try any harder to define the behavior as "bad" because it is already fully defined as that. Men do it anyways. Men WILL do it anyways no matter how much worse the definition is, simply because that is nature.

When you look past the pseudoscience here, you keep dishonestly trying to inflate thought with action.

Humans have self control. They can use it.

All of the above being facts, one should not get to use the wrong words unquestioned. Words mean things. It's a bigger issue to try to appropriate terms to serve your agenda that some older guy that you're not attracted you politely hit on you.

You mean like you and the word natural?

Not saying something doesn't change the fact that the desire behind it is there. That's what is being attacked when you call this behavior sexual harassment. By focusing on the rude (not harassing, simply "rude") act of speaking out ones thoughts, one tackles the symptoms but not the disease.

To maximize your logic, one would then have to move on to attacking this natural urge, were they to be consistent with this line of thought. That, that is the actual issue. That is what is really being tackled here. That is why people use special terms and don't simply call rude behavior rude. (which we all agree that it is) Nobody objects to people who are rude being considered rude people and whatever social ramifications may follow that, though locking them up is quite extreme if I may say so.

I speak of the urge to say the comments with the term natural, not of the act of saying them.

If the disease isn't treatable then you treat the symptoms. And if we are to believe you then it isn't treatable. And I don't believe you. However I just happen to realize you can do both to minimize the effects. So you're really wrong either way.

Urges aren't the issue. The issue is a lack of self control. If someone is going to try and excuse themselves by claiming they lack self control then I say lock them up until they learn it. I don't tolerate fake excuses for personal failings.

Commenting like that is a learned behavior. And you're abusing the word natural trying to imply that it makes anything okay and going off on what is natural without a lick of proof. Some is but the extent that you keep using it is a bit much.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

"the natural law"
All of the above being facts, one should not get to use the wrong words unquestioned. Words mean things. It's a bigger issue to try to appropriate terms to serve your agenda. That some older guy that you're not attracted to politely hit on you is pretty insignificant.

I am a biologist. Never. Ever. Use that phrase again please when discussing sociology. It kills us inside. Seriously. Words are important, and if they are dont use crap like that, no one with education in any science will accept evo-psych stuff like that, its usually entirely BS and almost painful to read.

Its fairly insignificant on a societal basis but it shows a total lack of respect on a personal level to use a professional space to hit on someone. There is no polite way to so crassly hit on someone its rude in almost every context. This included. She had every right to stand up for herself and it most certainly is arguably sexist if she puts up with it regularly from men on the website, implying her gender is the reason she is receiving these messages.

Haha, I meant that term not in the scientific definition but more "laws of nature" as one without a background in science would understand them. Apologies for bothering ya though, will keep it in mind!


I think people hit on other people all the time in workplaces or other such things. I think people reciprocate being hit on enough to proliferate the activity. It's a slightly rude thing at worst. Not harassment. (talking specifically about the act in this case here)

She has every right to call him out on being rude, not on harassing her. The reason she would put up with it from men is that she's a woman and most men are attracted to women. If she was a man, all other things being equal (age, power of the people hitting on her, attractiveness etc.) she'd be accosted by women. It's not sexism at play, it's basic, universal, non-gender-specific horniness.

If the disease isn't treatable then you treat the symptoms. And if we are to believe you then it isn't treatable. And I don't believe you. However I just happen to realize you can do both to minimize the effects. So you're really wrong either way.

Urges aren't the issue. The issue is a lack of self control. If someone is going to try and excuse themselves by claiming they lack self control then I say lock them up until they learn it. I don't tolerate fake excuses for personal failings.

Commenting like that is a learned behavior. And you're abusing the word natural trying to imply that it makes anything okay and going off on what is natural without a lick of proof. Some is but the extent that you keep using it is a bit much.

The point is that it isn't a disease. To treat is as a disease or to wish it to be cured is the offensive thing here. You are the one who is demonizing people who aren't actually hurting anyone.


I think it's not a lack of self control but rather the view that such a comment could never potentially offend anyone that's at work behind this comment here. One can argue back and forth about the validity of such a claim. You can find people complaining about compliments and you can find people seeking them out. Oftentimes, who is the person saying the compliment matters more than the actual act in itself.

That being the case, you can't brand this situation a disease in need of treatment. Just learn to accept that we're human beings, sexual, and that like everyone else, you may have to deal with rude sexual approaches in your life sometime, accept it and move on.

 

[Olas]

I think regardless of your thoughts on the act itself, we can probably all agree that calling it "sexist" is incorrect. Complementing someone's appearance is not inherently sexual. I hear women call other women "stunning" periodically without any sexual basis, so why is it different if this guy does it? The word can even be used on inanimate objects.

Ya, this isn't sexism, not by any practical definition that I can think of.

So you don't believe in context to comments? One guy calls his friend an idiot so any time he's called an idiot and gets mad it's just incomprehensible why he doesn't like the word then since he didn't mind it before?

When did I say I don't believe in context? I don't believe this is sexist in the context it occurred in.

Your argument was that you've seen other women call women stunning. Therefore... what it can't be sexual?

I assumed that the word had no sexual connotation because I've seen no evidence that it does. I've seen both men and strait women refer to women as "stunning" before based on the same general attributes. So on what basis should I infer that it means something wholly different when men say it?

When done by a total stranger.

Strangers can't say nice things to each other?

On a professional website.

If the accusation was that the comment was "unprofessional" then I'd be on board. Though I don't see the point of professionalism, so I wouldn't really care about that either.

Preceded by him saying he knows it isn't politically correct.

Literally the only thing I have a problem with. The idea that it's politically incorrect to call someone "stunning" makes no sense to me.

Later followed by him claiming he was talking about the compisition of the photo, which doesn't really mesh with the politically incorrect precursor statement.

My guess is he was just trying to backtrack from his statement, which is stupid since there was nothing wrong with it.

Makes as much sense as saying you see friends call each other idiot in a non-insulting manner, why can't total strangers.

Looks like totally ignoring the existence of context to me.

Well I'm not ignoring context, regardless of what it looks like to you. The example you're using has 2 radically different contexts: that of a close friend, and a total stranger. I was comparing total strangers who happen to be women, and a total stranger that happens to be a man. If the word "stunning" does have a sexual connotation when coming from a man that's something I've been unaware of until just now.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I think regardless of your thoughts on the act itself, we can probably all agree that calling it "sexist" is incorrect. Complementing someone's appearance is not inherently sexual. I hear women call other women "stunning" periodically without any sexual basis, so why is it different if this guy does it? The word can even be used on inanimate objects.

Ya, this isn't sexism, not by any practical definition that I can think of.

So you don't believe in context to comments? One guy calls his friend an idiot so any time he's called an idiot and gets mad it's just incomprehensible why he doesn't like the word then since he didn't mind it before?

When did I say I don't believe in context? I don't believe this is sexist in the context it occurred in.

Your argument was that you've seen other women call women stunning. Therefore... what it can't be sexual?

I assumed that the word had no sexual connotation because I've seen no evidence that it does. I've seen both men and strait women refer to women as "stunning" before based on the same general attributes. So on what basis should I infer that it means something wholly different when men say it?

When done by a total stranger.

Strangers can't say nice things to each other?

On a professional website.

If the accusation was that the comment was "unprofessional" then I'd be on board. Though I don't see the point of professionalism, so I wouldn't really care about that either.

Preceded by him saying he knows it isn't politically correct.

Literally the only thing I have a problem with. The idea that it's politically incorrect to call someone "stunning" makes no sense to me.

Later followed by him claiming he was talking about the compisition of the photo, which doesn't really mesh with the politically incorrect precursor statement.

My guess is he was just trying to backtrack from his statement, which is stupid since there was nothing wrong with it.

Makes as much sense as saying you see friends call each other idiot in a non-insulting manner, why can't total strangers.

Looks like totally ignoring the existence of context to me.

Well I'm not ignoring context, regardless of what it looks like to you. The example you're using has 2 radically different contexts: that of a close friend, and a total stranger. I was comparing total strangers who happen to be women, and a total stranger that happens to be a man. If the word "stunning" does have a sexual connotation when coming from a man that's something I've been unaware of until just now.

Do I really have to explain how sexuality usually comes off in society? Namely that society usually assumes heterosexuality and thus two women complementing each other is assumed to not be sexual because of it?

Also you do get the concept of hitting on someone yes? You seem to not get that stunning can be used to hit on someone too. Not only are you trying to say it can be used in a non-sexual context, it can, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that it can be used in such a context if hitting on someone.

Strangers could compliment each other. However he went out of his way to do so on the site. It's not like saying "Nice hat" in passing.

Not only that you don't seem to get how context goes together. He's complimenting a complete stranger on a professional website. It starts to add up to more unlikely that he just felt an extreme urge to compliment her knowing that it wasn't professional.

Maybe it makes no sense to you because you're adamantly refusing to accept the notion that you can use it to hit on someone. If you actually acknowledge that then it becomes pretty obvious why he acknowledged it as politically incorrect.

He's trying to backtrack from hitting on her.

It's not that it must when coming from a man. But randomly commenting on someone's appearance to tell them they're stunning, while acknowledging it as politically incorrect, makes it pretty obvious that it's trying to hit on someone. You don't start an actual work connection by mostly posting about someone's appearance and then giving a small standard sounding line about skills and working together with 0 said about her actual skills or experience.

To compare it to your example, just how often do you think women go out of their way to tell someone they're stunning online on LinkedIn? And preface it by calling it politically incorrect then lie about their intentions when called on it?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

"the natural law"
All of the above being facts, one should not get to use the wrong words unquestioned. Words mean things. It's a bigger issue to try to appropriate terms to serve your agenda. That some older guy that you're not attracted to politely hit on you is pretty insignificant.

I am a biologist. Never. Ever. Use that phrase again please when discussing sociology. It kills us inside. Seriously. Words are important, and if they are dont use crap like that, no one with education in any science will accept evo-psych stuff like that, its usually entirely BS and almost painful to read.

Its fairly insignificant on a societal basis but it shows a total lack of respect on a personal level to use a professional space to hit on someone. There is no polite way to so crassly hit on someone its rude in almost every context. This included. She had every right to stand up for herself and it most certainly is arguably sexist if she puts up with it regularly from men on the website, implying her gender is the reason she is receiving these messages.

Haha, I meant that term not in the scientific definition but more "laws of nature" as one without a background in science would understand them. Apologies for bothering ya though, will keep it in mind!


I think people hit on other people all the time in workplaces or other such things. I think people reciprocate being hit on enough to proliferate the activity. It's a slightly rude thing at worst. Not harassment. (talking specifically about the act in this case here)

She has every right to call him out on being rude, not on harassing her. The reason she would put up with it from men is that she's a woman and most men are attracted to women. If she was a man, all other things being equal (age, power of the people hitting on her, attractiveness etc.) she'd be accosted by women. It's not sexism at play, it's basic, universal, non-gender-specific horniness.

If the disease isn't treatable then you treat the symptoms. And if we are to believe you then it isn't treatable. And I don't believe you. However I just happen to realize you can do both to minimize the effects. So you're really wrong either way.

Urges aren't the issue. The issue is a lack of self control. If someone is going to try and excuse themselves by claiming they lack self control then I say lock them up until they learn it. I don't tolerate fake excuses for personal failings.

Commenting like that is a learned behavior. And you're abusing the word natural trying to imply that it makes anything okay and going off on what is natural without a lick of proof. Some is but the extent that you keep using it is a bit much.

The point is that it isn't a disease. To treat is as a disease or to wish it to be cured is the offensive thing here. You are the one who is demonizing people who aren't actually hurting anyone.


I think it's not a lack of self control but rather the view that such a comment could never potentially offend anyone that's at work behind this comment here. One can argue back and forth about the validity of such a claim. You can find people complaining about compliments and you can find people seeking them out. Oftentimes, who is the person saying the compliment matters more than the actual act in itself.

That being the case, you can't brand this situation a disease in need of treatment. Just learn to accept that we're human beings, sexual, and that like everyone else, you may have to deal with rude sexual approaches in your life sometime, accept it and move on.

Maybe the people you make excuses for should learn it can get them and trouble, accept it, and move on.

Harassing people also does count as harm.

And lastly, "we're human!" is a terrible excuse to not learn self control

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Being rude isn't the same as harassment. It does not harm anybody but the clinically weak-willed.

I'm all for the rude get their just desserts. I am against them getting the desserts of the ones who would do acts of actual harassment such as being crass or even touching someone, as that would be unfair. I think that's basic common sense.


Where would you draw the line? If that's harassment as opposed to plain rudeness, what ISN'T harassment.