Caught Staring to Etiquette for Opposite Sex Interactions

[DaveC426913]

You talk of the effects of a man's stare on a woman and say that there is no judgement on her part. This is the list you provided.Every line starts with 'you' which implies the viewer in this case. She is both being judged and judging in return, rightfully so I say.

But she did not ask for this. You cannot claim it's a two-way street.

You say that not looking at a woman is a way to not cause her discomfort. I disagree with this. Even if she walks around all day and doesn't catch a single guy checking her out (which would be uncomfortable for some women too) there is still the possibility that something truly harmful can happen. Whether guys look at her or not, none of the real danger is lessened to her. If anything, catching guys staring at her works to her benefit, because it makes people's interests clear. She can trust at least that much to be true, which is one thing she didn't know if nobody looks under the pretense of being gentlemanly.

Really. You honestly think that, in general, women feel the way you describe. That a woman would rather all the men in her office were overt about their attraction to her. Tell me you honestly think that.

Whether you do or not is beside the point. It is making a decision for her. Ask her what benefits her and I'll bet she'll say "please don't undress me with your eyes".

I suppose if it was a habitual experience and happened everywhere I went then I might feel differently. I'd be indifferent to people's stares rather than be uncomfortable. If I felt threatened then I might be very defensive about how people look at me. The real injustice is the crimes that instil the fear of threat in a gaze.

I had an inspiration for a Twilight Zone short story that I plan to write one day. I thought of it the day I realized men will never have to walk in women's shoes.

The story centres around a man who is a misogynist who (since this is a Twilight Zone ep) needs to be given a taste of his own medicine. Through some mystical means, he is forced to walk the city streets late at night with a giant neon sign over his head that says "I have myriad treasures under my cloak and I am too weak to protect myself."

No matter that he is perfectly capable of defending himself - he is perceived as being a mark. No matter that the perception is utterly wrong. The only factor is the preconceptions in the minds of the people who look at him. For this reason alone he must constantly be defending himself from every jerk who thinks they've spotted and easy mark. And yes, he is just as cautious around the nice guys. He has to be. He can never drop his guard.

Consider what it must be like for a man to go through life (particularly one that is not particularly handsome) dealing with the fact that a significant number of women out there may well look at him and wonder if he is a rapist.

Yeah. He's the victim.

Sounds like the slender-built guy who complains that he's not beefy enough to be a good bully and beat up the little kids. Oh woe is him.

 

[Huckleberry]

But she did not ask for this. You cannot claim it's a two-way street.

How would you recommend a man approach a woman without looking at her? I think it would be great if women approached men more often, but it isn't expected of them. I don't see the benefit to concealing sexual desire, especially if a direct, honest approach is more successful. Why would I want her to think I wasn't interested in her sexually if that is a possibility I'm considering? I'm not removing her choice in any real matter. I'm only removing her choice to be unaware of my interest. What she makes of it is hers to decide. I'm speaking my opinion with my eyes. Some women won't like it and some will, just as if I spoke my opinion with my lips. I fail to see the difference. Should I only communicate my opinion to people who won't be uncomfortable with it? How can I tell if she will be uncomfortable without telling her my opinion? I am sexually attracted to women and it is wrong to announce that to women. Where did that partition go? My discomfort is my shame. (HRW, yes, there are guys as insecure as this. They are often called nice guys. This has no correlation to how nice they are, but conformity to polite conventions and concern for personal public image.)

Really. You honestly think that, in general, women feel the way you describe. That a woman would rather all the men in her office were overt about their attraction to her. Tell me you honestly think that.

Whether you do or not is beside the point. It is making a decision for her. Ask her what benefits her and I'll bet she'll say "please don't undress me with your eyes".

Keep in mind that a woman's coworkers are not strangers. They should be familiar with her already, both her form and her personality. It's also an office, where one is expected to maintain a professional attitude. It isn't a place where people go to meet potential mates, but that often happens anyway, so apparently people are checking each other out even at the office. I would think that a woman would want a man that liked her to let her know, especially if she also liked him. I don't think she would want him to hit on her every day if she rejected him already. The location doesn't matter.

I said nothing about what women would rather have men do. My point wasn't that looking doesn't cause discomfort. My point was that not looking will not benefit her in any real way. If the cause of her discomfort is fear for her well-being then her situation does not improve whether men look or not. The solution isn't to stop men from checking out women. That solves nothing. A solution would be to eliminate the sex drive and aggression from all men regardless of the individual's propensity towards those things. Then men won't look at women sexually. I don't think that solution is desirable to either sex.
edit - burkas are a more likely solution.

I had an inspiration for a Twilight Zone short story that I plan to write one day. I thought of it the day I realized men will never have to walk in women's shoes.

The story centres around a man who is a misogynist who (since this is a Twilight Zone ep) needs to be given a taste of his own medicine. Through some mystical means, he is forced to walk the city streets late at night with a giant neon sign over his head that says "I have myriad treasures under my cloak and I am too weak to protect myself."

No matter that he is perfectly capable of defending himself - he is perceived as being a mark. No matter that the perception is utterly wrong. The only factor is the preconceptions in the minds of the people who look at him. For this reason alone he must constantly be defending himself from every jerk who thinks they've spotted and easy mark. And yes, he is just as cautious around the nice guys. He has to be. He can never drop his guard.

I guarantee that I do not have x-ray vision to see the myriad treasures beneath a woman's cloak. So unless you are implying that looking at a woman sexually is akin to rape I don't see the point in the analogy. It should also be mentioned that women also look at men sexually. They can easily be as lascivious as men, and their eyesight is just as strong, so no disadvantage there. I still say that we should all just go naked and forget about these perverse clothing conventions. Saying "nice breasts" should be no more startling and no less complimentary than saying "nice shirt".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Do some guys really feel this way?

"Rapist" may be a bit extreme but think about it. We have a thread here because a guy felt like he had done something wrong being caught looking at a woman. Most of the men in this thread seem to realize this impression of it being bad to be caught staring(regardless of whether they agree it is bad). In contrast none of the women seem to think it is a big deal to be 'caught'. When someone made a statement that one ought to unabashedly take an opportunity to look a woman over and not worry anything about it "being wrong" or that the woman may not like it several people chimed into make negative comments about the poster. You yourself even made a comment about it making you think of a classification for a type of rapist. Not many people seem to be wondering whether or not it is improper of the woman to be offended by a display of attraction or that perhaps it really is 'snobbish' to have such a reaction. What would you think if a man saw you checking him out and he acted offended? And then there is Dave's argument. Referring to looking at someone as violating their personal space makes it sound like a borderline sexual assault in and of itself.

Yeah. He's the victim.

Sounds like the slender-built guy who complains that he's not beefy enough to be a good bully and beat up the little kids. Oh woe is him.

OMG! That guy is looking at me! He probably thinks I'm attractive. I didn't ask for this! WOE IS ME!

 

[honestrosewater]

When someone made a statement that one ought to unabashedly take an opportunity to look a woman over and not worry anything about it "being wrong" or that the woman may not like it several people chimed into make negative comments about the poster. You yourself even made a comment about it making you think of a classification for a type of rapist. Not many people seem to be wondering whether or not it is improper of the woman to be offended by a display of attraction or that perhaps it really is 'snobbish' to have such a reaction. What would you think if a man saw you checking him out and he acted offended?

I would probably think that he was overreacting. But, and I've tried to make this point already, I would then stop looking. Before the person let's you know in some way, it's all a big guessing game, so I say you have leeway. But if someone let's you know -- verbally or visually or however -- that they don't want you looking, I think you need to stop looking. I asked twice what you guys would do in that situation, and no one answered.

It was not his desire for women or admiration of beauty that I found alarming. It was his apparent contempt for a class of people. Contempt for a class of people should be alarming.

And then there is Dave's argument. Referring to looking at someone as violating their personal space makes it sound like a borderline sexual assault in and of itself.

I'm not sure I'm with Dave in the details, but I see some substance to the core of his argument. What is the difference between looking and touching? Can we all agree that it is inappropriate to grope people that you pass on the street? So why is sight different? Does self-ownership not apply to your appearance?

There clearly are some differences between sight and touch. It's possible to look at someone without them knowing, so looking doesn't always necessarily affect them in any way. Touch doesn't really work this way. But does a person have a right to not be looked at? I think the boundary between incidental looking and sexual ogling is just hard to clarify and avoid/protect. But there does seem to be a legitimate boundary there. What about using mirrors to look up skirts? Is that an invasion of personal space?

 

[Huckleberry]

I would probably think that he was overreacting. But, and I've tried to make this point already, I would then stop looking. Before the person let's you know in some way, it's all a big guessing game, so I say you have leeway. But if someone let's you know -- verbally or visually or however -- that they don't want you looking, I think you need to stop looking. I asked twice what you guys would do in that situation, and no one answered.

I was at the airport in Mexico D.F. and from across the terminal I saw a group of attractive women. One of them was literally head and shoulders above the rest. She must have been standing at 6'6". I couldn't see her shoes so maybe she was wearing stilts, or maybe she was standing on a dwarfs shoulders or something. It looked like she was a model. Her hair long and black and pulled up tight and made her look even more statuesque. I stopped right in my tracks and just stood there staring at her for a good 30 seconds with my dufflebag slung over my shoulder. It wasn't contempt that made me stare. I was just blown away.

When I was going to school there was one guy there who had suffered horrible burns to his face. He was badly disfigured. I know it is polite convention not to stare, but I am curious like a child. I want to see it and examine this unusual thing and ask him questions. I never did because I thought he might consider it rude. I say 'unusual thing' because that is how I see it. His face is a part of his body, but it isn't what makes him a person. Similarly, I catch myself looking at some women with the same curiousity, perhaps with an additional sexual element. The world is like an art gallery to me. People will always be people, but bodies are just bodies.

A guy with a mirror trying to look up women's dresses is juvenile and perverse. It wasn't an area she meant to display. It's invasive to force her to reveal parts of herself that she doesn't want to reveal. I'm sure convention would dictate an aggressive harsh response in reaction to this behaviour and he'll get whatever is coming to him for it, legal charges, beaten up by some guy friends, whatever. He knew the consequences beforehand so he'll have to deal with them. But really he isn't seeing anything more than he would if he was watching women on the beach. The issue is that he forcefully invaded her privacy. That's important. How enraged people get over it will vary.

Not that I walk around oggling women, but if a woman told me to stop staring at her I would. I understand that it is commonly considered rude to stare. I think that's a pretty silly convention, but it's one I can live with. "Don't look at me" just seems like a thing a petulant child would say. Even if some guy is using his best pervy creep stare what difference does it make? He's identifying himself for what he is. Why should any woman allow that to change how she feels about herself? He has no authority over anyone unless they actually care what he thinks. Why anyone would is beyond me. What, just because he is a man you have to respect his judgements? To hell with that! He's an idiot. It isn't his stare that concerns me, but the possibility of a physical threat.

I feel that women should not be ashamed of their bodies, or rely on the judgements of men or other women to determine how they feel about themselves. I believe it is a benefit for all humanity if one class of people are not dominated by another. So while people will always judge, there is nothing saying one must buy into this harmful convention that women should be insecure about their bodies because their sexuality should be hidden. Why any man would want to force women to hide their sexuality is beyond me. It's an archaic idea that seems to work contrary to its intended purpose of insuring fidelity. It's really just a mechanism for man's authority over women so it sticks around.

It was not his desire for women or admiration of beauty that I found alarming. It was his apparent contempt for a class of people. Contempt for a class of people should be alarming.

I didn't see it that way. Someone says "I don't care..." and immediately people assume contempt. It's ambivalence, not contempt. Being unconcerned with convention is often considered contemptuous. He knew people would feel this way so he made statements about his position on feminism and mentioned his female friends. People read this and think "Yeah, yeah, that's the chocolate sprinkles on the BS sundae." He is already operating outside convention just by making his statement. Why would anyone interpret it according to conventions he isn't using? There may be contempt, but it doesn't seem so apparent to me.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would probably think that he was overreacting. But, and I've tried to make this point already, I would then stop looking. Before the person let's you know in some way, it's all a big guessing game, so I say you have leeway. But if someone let's you know -- verbally or visually or however -- that they don't want you looking, I think you need to stop looking. I asked twice what you guys would do in that situation, and no one answered.

Sorry about that. If a person decided that it was necessary to indicate to me that they would prefer I not look at them I would probably find it amusing and over sensitive of them (as you would apparently think yourself, at least the overly sensitive part). If it bothered the person that much I would probably stop looking just to be nice but would likely find it hard to not look again occasionally to see what they are doing and how they are reacting. I'm a people watcher so I do not just look at people because I am attracted to them or have some interest in approaching them. Mostly I am not 'caught'. People, usually women, may occasionally signal disinterest in me if 'caught' but they usually ignore me after that.

Rarely I find women looking at me. I tend to be shy and self conscious so it may make me feel nervous and uncomfortable. But I know that I "own" those reactions, as a pop psychologist might say, and that I am ultimately responsible for my feeling uncomfortable that someone is looking at me. Most likely I will ignore them or maybe I will approach them or go someplace where I will not be seen by them if I feel particularly uncomfortable about it.

It was not his desire for women or admiration of beauty that I found alarming. It was his apparent contempt for a class of people. Contempt for a class of people should be alarming.

Here I would pretty much echo what Huck has already responded. I would add that I personally find contempt of some degree or other for certain 'classes' of people, usually just a minor amusement with their attitudes. As noted earlier I find it silly if a woman feels the need to signal to me that she would prefer I not look at her. It does seem 'snobby'. Obviously women have no issue with the idea of a man they find attractive looking at them. To signal to someone that she would prefer they not so much as lay eyes upon her would seem to me to indicate that they are somehow lowly, inferior, or so disgusting that she feels dirty or afraid even being looked at by them.

edit: A single woman goes out in public dressed in a sexy manner to invite men to look at her. She is obviously hoping that a man she finds attractive and may have interest in will accept that invitation. But that invitation can not be made singularly to individuals, it is broadcast to everyone who may look at her. To signal to certain individuals that she does not wish to be looked at by them is like saying "Well you're not invited" after inviting everyone and any one. How is that not rude?

I'm not sure I'm with Dave in the details, but I see some substance to the core of his argument. What is the difference between looking and touching? Can we all agree that it is inappropriate to grope people that you pass on the street? So why is sight different? Does self-ownership not apply to your appearance?

There clearly are some differences between sight and touch. It's possible to look at someone without them knowing, so looking doesn't always necessarily affect them in any way. Touch doesn't really work this way. But does a person have a right to not be looked at? I think the boundary between incidental looking and sexual ogling is just hard to clarify and avoid/protect. But there does seem to be a legitimate boundary there. What about using mirrors to look up skirts? Is that an invasion of personal space?

Observing a person is the most minimal and non-invasive way you could possibly have contact with someone. Even typing this to you, so long as you read it, is in my mind more intimate/invasive than if I were to simply watch you running by in the park on your morning run. Looking is completely passive. One is not necessarily trying to get your attention or illicit any response. Its hardly more intrusive than simply being present. The only 'invasion' I can imagine comes with the potential intent which goes back to my mention of men living with women looking at them as potential creeps/stalkers/rapists. In what way could you really find any intrusiveness to a person merely looking at you other than to assign a possibly malign motive to the looking?

Edit: as for mirrors on the shoes a person is obviously invading your private space in such an instance. They must get close to you and attempt to circumvent the barriers you have placed between yourself and them.

 

[honestrosewater]

I didn't see it that way. Someone says "I don't care..." and immediately people assume contempt. It's ambivalence, not contempt. Being unconcerned with convention is often considered contemptuous.

I have no problem whatsoever with being unconcerned about conventions. I am probably (coincidentally) one of the least conventional people ever in the universe of the world. Perhaps he does feel ambivalent. But when I see exclamation points!? and SHOUTING, I do not think of ambivalence. The two don't seem to go together. Perhaps he is ambivalent about the subject but frustrated with our discussion of it. I don't know, as I said. I was pointing out something that I thought might be important.

I probably don't have any major disagreements with anyone here, but it sounds like the world could use more kindness.

 

[DaveC426913]

Referring to looking at someone as violating their personal space makes it sound like a borderline sexual assault in and of itself.

Correct, it does not cross into sexual assault. The word was 'harm' (stress/anguish/emotion). One cannot invalidate the claim by substituting one's own words and then attacking those words. That is a straw man fallacy.

So, y'all have tried very hard to pick around the edges of the claim - which is a strong hint that everyone realizes that a direct attack will surely fail. It's time to ask straight out:

Are you confident that overtly ogling a person for their attractiveness does not create a conceivable potential for harm (stress/anguish/emotional) to the target? Yes or no.

 

[Huckleberry]

So, y'all have tried very hard to pick around the edges of the claim - which is a strong hint that everyone realizes that a direct attack will surely fail.

Fail to do what; to be universally correct or to convince you that other people are allowed to operate on their own principles? You are on the offensive here. Nobody has attacked your opinion. If you think it is inherently wrong to look at women sexually then stop doing that. You won't make me feel ashamed of it too.

It's time to ask straight out:

Are you confident that overtly ogling a person for their attractiveness does not create a conceivable potential for harm (stress/anguish/emotional) to the target? Yes or no.

The current convention causes harm to both women and men. I've stated that as my opinion at least twice already. It creates a power struggle.

Do you want to be able to stare at a attractive woman while having no intention of making good on it? Then you're doing fine.

But if you have any intention of ever dating an attractive woman, then waht does have a point. Women like confidence. Women like men who have the cahones to hold a gaze, smile and then approach them. To a woman, that's waht* separates the boys from the men.

Ladies? Jump in and correct if I'm wrong.

Perhaps it is time for a new convention; one that doesn't twist people up inside whenever someone looks at them, or make them so afraid of judgement that they can't look at someone at all. The current convention is disfunctional.

 

[Huckleberry]

I probably don't have any major disagreements with anyone here, but it sounds like the world could use more kindness.

For real. Now if we could only agree on how best to serve kindness that would be great. If we could even distinguish it from politeness that would be a step forward.

It sounds like you've made a decision without making a decision, if that makes any sense. If you care to share, what would you consider kindness in this situation?

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Also possibly interesting is this thread with study-
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=293904&highlight=objectify

Perhaps this stare causes discomfort-
'And the men who scored higher as "hostile sexists"—those who view women as controlling and invaders of male space—didn't show brain activity that indicates they saw the women in bikinis as humans with thoughts and intentions.'

 

[honestrosewater]

what would you consider kindness in this situation?

In the looking situation? I guess a good start would be not assuming the worst about people when you can afford to or giving up your eyeful to save someone some discomfort. If I run to my complex's usually-empty laundry room at night in my robe because I don't feel like getting dressed to go get my laundry and seem uncomfortable or embarrassed when I run into you, don't assume it's because I am a snob or think you are a rapist. Assume I was actually not trying to attract any attention or send any sexual messages to anyone and just look away. I'll also assume the best about you and try to laugh about the situation and maybe be impressed enough by your gesture to really give you something to look at.

...after I run a background check on you because I do, of course, assume you are a rapist.

A little kindness can go a long way.

 

[DaveC426913]

Fail to do what; to be universally correct or to convince you that other people are allowed to operate on their own principles?

Again. Not saying any of this isn't true. No claim of right or wrong here. I do it myself.

Just not deluding myself that there's no potential harm in it.

Some people here still think that no harm can come of it.

You are on the offensive here. Nobody has attacked your opinion.

Again. Just trying to get people to abandon the idea that there is no potential harm.

If you think it is inherently wrong to look at women sexually then stop doing that. You won't make me feel ashamed of it too.

And again. No judgement is forthcoming.

You are tilting at an imaginary windmill here.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

But she did not ask for this. You cannot claim it's a two-way street.


Really. You honestly think that, in general, women feel the way you describe. That a woman would rather all the men in her office were overt about their attraction to her. Tell me you honestly think that.

Whether you do or not is beside the point. It is making a decision for her. Ask her what benefits her and I'll bet she'll say "please don't undress me with your eyes".



I had an inspiration for a Twilight Zone short story that I plan to write one day. I thought of it the day I realized men will never have to walk in women's shoes.




Yeah. He's the victim.

Sounds like the slender-built guy who complains that he's not beefy enough to be a good bully and beat up the little kids. Oh woe is him.

Why not just send him to a gym in the Castro District? Honestly I think we can objectively call being straight and getting harassed in the Castro District as bad an experience as being a woman and being harassed by guys.

Also, I think that you are sorely mistaken about guys not being able to understand the problem. I suffer from mild agoraphobia (used to be much more acute), I can guarantee that I am at least as bad off as far as social anxiety and fear goes than the average woman. I think honesty is more important than preserving the feelings of others, and I think that if we were all a bit more honest about how we felt we would be better off.

I ask you this, sir, do you feel constant anxiety when walking through a crowded area? I do, I perceive many groups of people as hostile. I live in what I would call the south and I have long hair. 50% of the cars I see have McCain Palin and John Deere bumper stickers, and I have in fact had moron hicks yell at me from their cars (due to the long hair bit). I would say that I am in a position to understand the sort of idiotic hostility some can have, and why I can empathize with those who dislike it.

By 'spontaneously' do you mean in a context where it is unexpected? I don't mind, but I don't know if I am typical in this respect. If you are interested in a sexual relationship with someone, physical attraction is important. I think this situation is a little tricky because, even if the motivation is welcome and all, the approach might not be. There is a conflict for me between knowing that someone might just want to be left alone and not wanting to miss an opportunity.

I saw this guy at school the other day who I thought was cute. I thought about saying something to him, but it seemed weird. I didn't know him at all. We just passed by each other. My approaching him would pretty much have said that I thought he was cute and wanted to know more about him. But I knew that maybe he was just trying to get to class and didn't want to deal with me. So I just smiled and left him alone. But when I am on the other side of that and the guy approaches me, it is understandable and acceptable even if it is an imposition of sorts. You can't really fault someone for asking. Even when the guy is not considerate in his approach, it is just one of those things that you have to deal with in order be part of society. It's a small price to pay. Honking and yelling things is pretty much the only thing that gets to the point of being genuinely annoying to me. This happens a lot when I am out running and I just want to enjoy my run and block out the rest of the world. Sometimes it is startling because I am not really paying attention and then suddenly someone is honking at me, and I think I am about to get hit or something, but then the guy whistles or shouts some baby-something and I want to punch him. So, yeah. I do suggest that you refrain from that. Please. Tell your friends. I totally don't get the point of it anyway. Maybe if someone could explain it, I would find it less annoying.

I can explain it; they suffer from Chronic Douchebaggery Syndrome.

 

[Red Rum]

So I was studying in the library, and I noticed this very beautiful girl a few rows down, and I was kinda staring at her (... ok yes, I was staring), and then she looked up and caught me staring at her. I mean, it's only natural to stare at attractive people, isn't it? It's their fault their so good looking! Anyway, I blushed (I could feel the heat in my cheeks), looked away, and ducked my head under the little partitions between the desks. I ask you now: what is the correct response when caught staring at one of the opposite sex?
Also, do girls think it is flattering or disgusting when a guy stares at them?

Smile and try not to look sleazy. Don't do what everyone in this country does which is either look away or completely ignore the person who stared. i take perverse pleasure in making natives of this country speak to me when i catch them staring. I get tremendous pleasure from watching them squirm with embarrassment at the prospect of having to converse with a stranger.

 

[DaveC426913]

Also, do girls think it is flattering or disgusting when a guy stares at them?

I think it often depends on how attractive the guy is.

 

[GeorginaS]

Also, do girls think it is flattering or disgusting when a guy stares at them?

I think it often depends on how attractive the guy is.

And I think that qualifier depends on the woman.

 

[DaveC426913]

And I think that qualifier depends on the woman.

That's why I said often.

So, in the case of certain women, is the implication that all guys can flatter even if unattractive? Or all guys don't flatter even if attractive?

 

[Huckleberry]

Just not deluding myself that there's no potential harm in it.

There's no potential harm in the stare. She won't explode no matter how long a man looks at her. I don't understand why you insist on focusing on this aspect as some great harm.

Sexual desire is the most natural thing in the world, but yes, it does have the potential to be harmful to both women and men, which is a fact that you downplay with mock concern. People can screw themselves up royally looking for intent in a one-way mirror.

 

[DaveC426913]

There's no potential harm in the stare.

OK. I disagree.

I'm satisfied though at least that we're speaking the same language.

I can live with disagreeing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Correct, it does not cross into sexual assault. The word was 'harm' (stress/anguish/emotion). One cannot invalidate the claim by substituting one's own words and then attacking those words. That is a straw man fallacy.

If you make an unwanted action that causes potential harm to an individual you are assaulting them. If you are doing something potentially harmful while invading their personal space, you are assaulting them. If you make this assault in what may be construed as a sexually suggestive manner then you are guilty of sexual assault. So when you are saying that a person is causing potential harm to a person by invading their space in a sexually suggestive manner you are implying that this person is committing a sexual assault regardless of whether you choose to use those words or not. The logical conclusion of your argument is not a strawman.

So, y'all have tried very hard to pick around the edges of the claim - which is a strong hint that everyone realizes that a direct attack will surely fail. It's time to ask straight out:

Are you confident that overtly ogling a person for their attractiveness does not create a conceivable potential for harm (stress/anguish/emotional) to the target? Yes or no.

I have in fact treated this. If you were not so intent on blowing off all of my arguments and or making snarky eye rolling comments you might have noticed.
My arguments have been that the person should not take it in this fashion and that any emotional anguish they suffer because a person is looking at them who finds them attractive is their own issue.

Again. Just trying to get people to abandon the idea that there is no potential harm.

If I am in fact doing no harm and the person is harming themself by being overly sensitive perhaps they are they one who ought to be abondoning their perception of victimhood and deal with the real issue. I already stated that I myself become uncomfortable when people are checking me out but I know its my own issue and that they are doing nothing wrong.

Why not just send him to a gym in the Castro District? Honestly I think we can objectively call being straight and getting harassed in the Castro District as bad an experience as being a woman and being harassed by guys.

I have never been to the Castro District but I have had men check me out and flirt with me. I've had men at bars buy me drinks and get in my personal space and touch me (though not in any overtly sexual manner). None of that ever really bothered me even though I was not attracted to them at all. The only men that have made me uncomfortable were the man three times my age who asked me about my masturbatory habits and the random guy who cut me off with his car while I was walking down the street at night and asked me if I wanted to make out.

And I think that qualifier depends on the woman.

I've never met a woman who had an issue with a person she was attracted to checking them out. Of course many women consider a person that they find attractive to be checking them out and a person whom they do not find attractive to be 'oggling' them. Its a wholly different thing in their mind depending on how they perceive the person looking.

 

[Huckleberry]

In the looking situation? I guess a good start would be not assuming the worst about people when you can afford to or giving up your eyeful to save someone some discomfort. If I run to my complex's usually-empty laundry room at night in my robe because I don't feel like getting dressed to go get my laundry and seem uncomfortable or embarrassed when I run into you, don't assume it's because I am a snob or think you are a rapist. Assume I was actually not trying to attract any attention or send any sexual messages to anyone and just look away. I'll also assume the best about you and try to laugh about the situation and maybe be impressed enough by your gesture to really give you something to look at.

...after I run a background check on you because I do, of course, assume you are a rapist.

A little kindness can go a long way.

So I guess I probably shouldn't say something like "Don't drop your droors. I wouldn't want you to be embarrassed."

You almost had me there. Then I realized that your scenario is a carrot on the end of a stick. Maybe the horse gets it and maybe he doesn't. If he does what is expected of him then he stands a chance of being rewarded. I've found that a modicum of discomfort in a woman is a good sign of approval. The very stress that Dave says is creating harm when she disapproves is the same thing that signals attraction when she does. I'm not saying guys should run roughshod over every encounter like a plundering berserker, but chasing carrots won't get a man where he wants to go with or without you. Kindness is great, but not because it is expected or something to be rewarded. That is politeness. Kindness comes from the heart. It is part of a person's expression of who they are.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have in fact treated this. If you were not so intent on blowing off all of my arguments and or making snarky eye rolling comments you might have noticed.

You are not the only person in this discussion. I get the impression you think everything I've been writing has been directed at you and only you.

 

[Huckleberry]

OK. I disagree.

I'm satisfied though at least that we're speaking the same language.

I can live with disagreeing.

Yeah, I can too. I love arguing with you, Dave. I like the passion. It's been fun, and I've learned a few things even if we disagree. Thanks.

 

[GeorginaS]

That's why I said often.

So, in the case of certain women, is the implication that all guys can flatter even if unattractive? Or all guys don't flatter even if attractive?

Put that way, I'd say both and add, some women would only be flattered if the fellow in question was attractive.

And, as you've aptly pointed out, Dave, some women (and men) find the behaviour threatening and some don't. Some women and men feel self-conscious in those situations, and that makes them feel uncomfortable, and some don't. And, yes, threatening behaviour is in the eye of the person feeling threatened.

I hadn't really considered beyond my own reactions, which are not to feel threatened or self-conscious if someone is looking at me, and, if they behave politely, such as smiling, nodding, and going on their way, I'm flattered. I don't care what's going on with their attractiveness.

But then, taking other people's personalities into consideration, I suppose one could respond to the OP by suggesting that, it's a bad thing to get "caught" (I prefer the word "noticed" but the person in the OP felt "caught", so there it is) if the person doing the "catching" responds in such a way as to suggest they feel bad.

 

[Galteeth]

Put that way, I'd say both and add, some women would only be flattered if the fellow in question was attractive.

And, as you've aptly pointed out, Dave, some women (and men) find the behaviour threatening and some don't. Some women and men feel self-conscious in those situations, and that makes them feel uncomfortable, and some don't. And, yes, threatening behaviour is in the eye of the person feeling threatened.

I hadn't really considered beyond my own reactions, which are not to feel threatened or self-conscious if someone is looking at me, and, if they behave politely, such as smiling, nodding, and going on their way, I'm flattered. I don't care what's going on with their attractiveness.

But then, taking other people's personalities into consideration, I suppose one could respond to the OP by suggesting that, it's a bad thing to get "caught" (I prefer the word "noticed" but the person in the OP felt "caught", so there it is) if the person doing the "catching" responds in such a way as to suggest they feel bad.

There you go. That's the it right there. The OP believed they were doing something wrong, hence they got "caught."
I think, and have to be careful here, because this could easily be misintrepreted, this is sort of the essence of the problem he is describing.
Generally, if you think something is wrong, you are probably right. For you. That is to say, if you feel guilty or are going against your moral instincts, this will have an overall efect on your actions.

Which is not the same thing as saying people who believe they are right actually are.

I went to spring break one time, and my friend was confused that people could check out girls and it seemed socially acceptable. He has sort of a sleazy view on women, so this view makes sense fr him, because he is projecting his own nature onto others. But for many, it is just part of an interaction that is normal in that setting. Their is no need for guilt, because they're not doing anything wrong.


On a slightly tangenital note, i think this is why you see child rape as such a recurring problem in christianity. It's like, if you see all sexual action or inclination as inherently evil, you are forced to conclude that you are an evil person, since sexuality is part of your nature, and you will act accordingly.


Edit: I wasn't referring to a mechanical spring, haha.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You are not the only person in this discussion. I get the impression you think everything I've been writing has been directed at you and only you.

I apologize if I assumed what you posted while quoting me was directed at me and that "y'all" may have included me.

 

[Galteeth]

So, anyway, here's today's xkcd.

http://www.xkcd.com/642/

wonder if mr. munroe reads these forums.

 

[JoVieira]

I said there is no harm in looking not there is no harm in staring! There is a very clear difference! Admiring someone and getting on with your day or staring which in my opinion is a bit rude - to stand and stare can create discomfort for the person that you are vstaring at!

 

[FayeKane]

Here's your answer:

I'm very sure she was flattered when she noticed. The feeling I would have after that would be to blush, not to judge the guy. It's only rude if you continue to stare after she saw you were looking at her.

The fact that you say she "caught" you, and that you hid under your desk (or whatever the OP said) speaks volumes--none of it true.

The best thing would have been to hold her glance for half a second, smile slightly for half a second, then look down at your work. (Peek up later to catch HER staring at YOU.)

If you walk out of the room, make sure to lock eyes with her and smile again.

This short interaction, in itself, wouldn't be enough to warrant walking over and interrupting her work. That would be creepy. But it is a GREAT beginning if you see her in a less formal context, like at a mixer. "Say, didn't you catch me looking at you in the library last Monday?" Only this time, smile, and DON'T look away!

-- faye

 

[DaveC426913]

I apologize if I assumed what you posted while quoting me was directed at me and that "y'all" may have included me.

Har har. (Now I'm afraid to use smileys lest you think I'm being glib) Your response read as if you thought I was addressing only you.

 

[JasonRox]

Wow, people make this so complicated.

I like a girl, I will talk to her. Simple, and it can't get easier than that.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here's your answer:

I'm very sure she was flattered when she noticed. The feeling I would have after that would be to blush, not to judge the guy. It's only rude if you continue to stare after she saw you were looking at her.

The fact that you say she "caught" you, and that you hid under your desk (or whatever the OP said) speaks volumes--none of it true.

The best thing would have been to hold her glance for half a second, smile slightly for half a second, then look down at your work. (Peek up later to catch HER staring at YOU.)

If you walk out of the room, make sure to lock eyes with her and smile again.

This short interaction, in itself, wouldn't be enough to warrant walking over and interrupting her work. That would be creepy. But it is a GREAT beginning if you see her in a less formal context, like at a mixer. "Say, didn't you catch me looking at you in the library last Monday?" Only this time, smile, and DON'T look away!

-- faye

Hmph. Just like a woman to offer a reasonable solution.

Now what are we going to argue about?

 

[JoVieira]

Erm what beer we drink haha!

 

[BobG]

Again. Not saying any of this isn't true. No claim of right or wrong here. I do it myself.

Just not deluding myself that there's no potential harm in it.

Some people here still think that no harm can come of it.

Yes, there is potential harm in it, but the harm would be the fault of the 'viewed' person (or fault shared with the friends that convinced her to make up her appearance in a manner she wasn't comfortable with).

Visual appearance is a signal everyone transmits, whether male or female. Your choice of clothes, your posture, your hairstyle, are all frequencies and information designed to attract the attention of some particular type of person. Any offense usually occurs because the filter was poorly designed and attracted the wrong type of person (hence I identify with SA's opinion that being overly hostile in response to getting caught looking is a little insulting). A better response than offense would be to realize a little filtering after the fact is required - in other words, sometimes a little discouragement to stop the 'stare' is necessary (some mild hostility could certainly be an appropriate filter - it, like the stare itself, just shouldn't be over done).

And I don't just mean the difference between revealing clothes and non-revealing clothes. The style of the clothes, the hair, make-up or no make-up, tattoos, body piercings, etc all play into deciding what type of person is going to be most likely to 'check you out'.

The only way a person is going to avoid transmitting any visual signals at all is to become a total recluse. Barring that, a person has to take some responsibility for the impact they're going to make on the world and learn to adjust accordingly - i.e. learn how to transmit visual signals that return desired results instead of undesired results.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, there is potential harm in it, but the harm would be the fault of the 'viewed' person (or fault shared with the friends that convinced her to make up her appearance in a manner she wasn't comfortable with).

Visual appearance is a signal everyone transmits, whether male or female. Your choice of clothes, your posture, your hairstyle, are all frequencies and information designed to attract the attention of some particular type of person. Any offense usually occurs because the filter was poorly designed and attracted the wrong type of person (hence I identify with SA's opinion that being overly hostile in response to getting caught looking is a little insulting). A better response than offense would be to realize a little filtering after the fact is required - in other words, sometimes a little discouragement to stop the 'stare' is necessary (some mild hostility could certainly be an appropriate filter - it, like the stare itself, just shouldn't be over done).

And I don't just mean the difference between revealing clothes and non-revealing clothes. The style of the clothes, the hair, make-up or no make-up, tattoos, body piercings, etc all play into deciding what type of person is going to be most likely to 'check you out'.

The only way a person is going to avoid transmitting any visual signals at all is to become a total recluse. Barring that, a person has to take some responsibility for the impact they're going to make on the world and learn to adjust accordingly - i.e. learn how to transmit visual signals that return desired results instead of undesired results.

This entire argument is tantamount to 'She was asking for it.'

 

[DaveC426913]

Wow, people make this so complicated.

I like a girl, I will talk to her. Simple, and it can't get easier than that.

That's great, but if you'd been following along, you'd have seen that that is not what we're talking about.

 

[BobG]

This entire argument is tantamount to 'She was asking for it.'

Yes it is.

That's a very neutral expression by the way. It's what you're claiming she's asking for and what you give her that would have negative or positive connotations.

She walked into the store like she owned the place! She ogled my sign! She even laid money on the counter! So of course I gave her a cup of coffee!

Whether 'checking someone out' is negative or positive depends on a person's view of sex. Rape is definitely bad (and for reasons that have little to do with sex). Some people would say unmarried consensual sex is bad, but flirting is okay. Some people would say any type of sexual attraction, flirting, or unchaperoned contact between two unmarried people is bad. Some people would say sexual attraction, flirting, etc is okay as long as you don't act on it until one becomes married, at which point sexual attraction should only be between the married couple.

I think the actions a person takes in response to the signals they receive (whether from a person or any other thing in their environment) are something they can control and they have sole responsibility for how they respond. A person has to receive and process the things they see before they can respond, however, and I don't think you can fault a person for receiving and processing info. That's an area where the person doing the transmitting has to take some responsibility.

The only common link between a woman "asking for it" with respect to being noticed by the opposite sex and a woman "asking for it" with respect to something like rape is that both are related to sex. Neither is sex, itself, and they're still two completely distinct things. (Ironically, isn't the idea that a woman would intentionally try to attract attention from the opposite sex one of the rationalizations for rape, as if attempting to draw attention was equivalent to asking for rape?)

I would make some exceptions, though. Sometimes, a person should tune the receivers to the proper channel (as much as possible, anyway). There are times when it's inappropriate to receive outside signals - on a date for example. Constantly checking out the football scores on the TV over the bar or constantly checking out the other women walking into the bar are both rude, with checking out the other women being more rude. The offense is in not shutting out the outside world and focusing solely on the person you're dating - at least to a large extent since really shutting off the entire outside world except the person you're dating would obviously be impossible. It's still focused more on the channel you're tuned to rather than ignoring any stimuli from the external world.

 

[BobG]

A slight diversion from the main topic:

If a woman is wearing a very nice perfume, how deeply can the man sitting next to her on the train inhale the fragrance before you'd consider it ogling?

Or is it different since the nose is an omnidirectional receiver? (i.e. - it's the looking directly at a woman that some might see as offensive vs noticing the woman)

Or does the offensiveness of the inhale depend upon which direction the man turns his head? (I think turning directly into her neck and hair, and then inhaling deeply, would definitely be a little offensive, but some of that has to do with the closeness - he'd truly be intruding on her physical space.)

Or, as they say, the quickest way to a man's heart is through his nose? (I.e. - a woman wouldn't wear perfume if she weren't trying to attract attention so it's perfectly acceptable to inhale deeply.)

(Life is so much simpler for women. They just toss a fragrance out there and don't worry too much. Guys wearing cologne or giving their date flowers have to make sure they direct the odor to woman's left nostril. The way to a man's heart? Through his left ear

 

[mcknia07]

Here's your answer:

I'm very sure she was flattered when she noticed. The feeling I would have after that would be to blush, not to judge the guy. It's only rude if you continue to stare after she saw you were looking at her.

The fact that you say she "caught" you, and that you hid under your desk (or whatever the OP said) speaks volumes--none of it true.

The best thing would have been to hold her glance for half a second, smile slightly for half a second, then look down at your work. (Peek up later to catch HER staring at YOU.)

If you walk out of the room, make sure to lock eyes with her and smile again.

This short interaction, in itself, wouldn't be enough to warrant walking over and interrupting her work. That would be creepy. But it is a GREAT beginning if you see her in a less formal context, like at a mixer. "Say, didn't you catch me looking at you in the library last Monday?" Only this time, smile, and DON'T look away!

-- faye

I like this answer, it makes total sense. Why can't more guys follow this concept

 

[DaveC426913]

A slight diversion from the main topic:

If a woman is wearing a very nice perfume, how deeply can the man sitting next to her on the train inhale the fragrance before you'd consider it ogling?

Or is it different since the nose is an omnidirectional receiver? (i.e. - it's the looking directly at a woman that some might see as offensive vs noticing the woman)

He can inhale as much as he wants (at least until his behaviour becomes mocking).

In this case, she is actively emitting chemicals. (Not the same as passively emitting photons.)

But I see some counter arguments about how the clothing she chose is active...

 

[JasonRox]

That's great, but if you'd been following along, you'd have seen that that is not what we're talking about.

I did follow. He got caught staring and debating what the approach would be. Then it was about someone mocking rape, and then kind of went back on topic.

It still comes down to... you have to talk to a girl to date one. So talk to the one you like.

 

[JasonRox]

I like this answer, it makes total sense. Why can't more guys follow this concept

Because the reality is, that it won't follow like that everytime. Maybe the girl is disgusted. So the looking back and catching her stare won't happen. There are so many cases.

Just like my prof. said in Graph Theory. If you find yourself caught into the if this, if that, and then if this, and if that, and so on... then forget it.

 

[honestrosewater]

(I.e. - a woman wouldn't wear perfume if she weren't trying to attract attention so it's perfectly acceptable to inhale deeply.)

What if she wants to smell nice for herself? Maybe her mom bought it for her and she wears it for her sake or to remember her. Maybe she wears it for her boyfriend. Maybe some salesperson at a store sprayed it on her. Maybe it rubbed off from her girlfriend. Why, of all the possibilities, would you assume it means she wants your attention? Maybe you were just using that as an example, and I've actually been meaning to ask this, so it's not just your comment that provoked it. I used to think that it was unfortunate that I can't wear what I would like to wear because I have to consider how horny guys will react to it. But it's not merely unfortunate because, really, if people would just not make assumptions like this, I could. And I was just thinking today that I would gladly give up the chance of meeting a potential romantic partner outside of official dating channels in exchange for not having to be the object of horny guys' attention every single place that I go. No matter what you wear -- skirts or sweats -- or how you look -- make-up or no make-up, hair done or undone -- or how you carry yourself -- sexy or strong -- or how you do anything else, someone is going to find you attractive, and a lot of them will let you know so. There is no escaping it. I never really thought about it before, and I don't usually think anything of it because I've accepted it as a part of life, and I realize that in most cases the person's intentions aren't bad, if they consider the effect of their actions at all, but its absence truly would be a relief. And also, being a woman does not necessarily make someone pitiful and weak and helpless. And also, I probably shouldn't wait until I am this annoyed before I mention something, but no one is perfect.

Huck,
I was just being cheeky. It only occurred to me because I find kindness attractive.

 

[DaveC426913]

This entire argument is tantamount to 'She was asking for it.'

Yes it is.

That's a very neutral expression by the way. It's what you're claiming she's asking for and what you give her that would have negative or positive connotations.

No I do not find it neutral at all. But it's not divided on a 'what kind of results' edge, it's balanced on a 'who is responsible for the results' edge.

The suggestion that she is inviting something is putting the responsibility upon her for what follows (whether good or bad).

Looking nice does not mean she is asking to be approached. And the corollary is that in order to not be approached, she is not expected to wear a muumuu.

 

[Huckleberry]

Huck,
I was just being cheeky. It only occurred to me because I find kindness attractive.

I was being cheeky too. I think I just play a little rougher than you, that's all. I find kindness attractive also, but if a woman is honest and free and aggressively playful then I have the same sexual reaction as you do to kindness. I like a little fresh blood in my morning coffee, as long as by the time the sun sets it's about knowing each other better and accepting that completely. Then every small kindness is magnified ten times because I can know it is more than a gift to me, but is something shared. I get a huge thrill just watching a woman do exactly what pleases her and knowing she accepts me just as I am, warts and all. That's the best kindness I can think of.

The thing about kindness is that it isn't always what it appears to be. Men know that women like kindness so they act kind to women not because they always are, but because they are reading your playbook in order to beat your game.

 

[BobG]

Wow, people make this so complicated.

I like a girl, I will talk to her. Simple, and it can't get easier than that.

That's great, but if you'd been following along, you'd have seen that that is not what we're talking about.

No I do not find it neutral at all. But it's not divided on a 'what kind of results' edge, it's balanced on a 'who is responsible for the results' edge.

The suggestion that she is inviting something is putting the responsibility upon her for what follows (whether good or bad).

Looking nice does not mean she is asking to be approached. And the corollary is that in order to not be approached, she is not expected to wear a muumuu.

OK, at this point I have to admit I have no idea what we're talking about - getting caught noticing an attractive female, asking a random female you see on the street for a date, or what.

In any event, approaching her would be an active response and would have gone beyond simply receiving information. (And, yes, I realize some stares could go far beyond simply receiving information, as well.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What if she wants to smell nice for herself? Maybe her mom bought it for her and she wears it for her sake or to remember her. Maybe she wears it for her boyfriend. Maybe some salesperson at a store sprayed it on her. Maybe it rubbed off from her girlfriend. Why, of all the possibilities, would you assume it means she wants your attention? Maybe you were just using that as an example, and I've actually been meaning to ask this, so it's not just your comment that provoked it. I used to think that it was unfortunate that I can't wear what I would like to wear because I have to consider how horny guys will react to it. But it's not merely unfortunate because, really, if people would just not make assumptions like this, I could. And I was just thinking today that I would gladly give up the chance of meeting a potential romantic partner outside of official dating channels in exchange for not having to be the object of horny guys' attention every single place that I go. No matter what you wear -- skirts or sweats -- or how you look -- make-up or no make-up, hair done or undone -- or how you carry yourself -- sexy or strong -- or how you do anything else, someone is going to find you attractive, and a lot of them will let you know so. There is no escaping it. I never really thought about it before, and I don't usually think anything of it because I've accepted it as a part of life, and I realize that in most cases the person's intentions aren't bad, if they consider the effect of their actions at all, but its absence truly would be a relief. And also, being a woman does not necessarily make someone pitiful and weak and helpless. And also, I probably shouldn't wait until I am this annoyed before I mention something, but no one is perfect.

As a practical matter there is really no way to go out in public and not be noticed in one fashion or another. If for what ever reason you'd prefer not to be noticed then its pretty much on you to come up with a way of preventing it. As for men approaching you and overtly hitting on you that's a bit of a different bag than what we have been talking about. Where I seem to be thinking really only of people observing someone some of the people in this thread seem to automatically think of someone who is "ogling" in a more neanderthal manner such as making grunting noises and crude gestures or something. That's beyond looking, observing, or "getting an eye full" as the case may be.

There also seems to be a bit of dissonance in thought here (not necessarily from you) which I'll talk about in my response to Dave.

No I do not find it neutral at all. But it's not divided on a 'what kind of results' edge, it's balanced on a 'who is responsible for the results' edge.

The suggestion that she is inviting something is putting the responsibility upon her for what follows (whether good or bad).

Looking nice does not mean she is asking to be approached. And the corollary is that in order to not be approached, she is not expected to wear a muumuu.

You can not avoid being noticed if you go out in public. That's just the fact of the matter. Anyone's mere presence anywhere 'invites' notice. You can not be a human being in a crowded society of social animals and expect to go about in it without winding up in contact with them unless you specifically authorize it first. So yes if you want to go out into the pool of humanity without being noticed that is your problem. Note again that we are discussing being looked at not being approached, harassed, assaulted, or raped. If you go out in public and get noticed that is your responsibility and "what follows" may or may not be.


It also seems rather funny to me that this whole argument is rather dissonant with the advice typically given to any person asking about advice here on talking to women. Invariably they are told by almost everyone to go for it, just walk right up to her and talk to her, ask her for her number, ask her to have coffee with you. So many people here seem flabberghasted that so many guys just don't get this. Then we have this long drawn out argument here. Checking a female out is invading her personal space. She isn't asking for it. You may harm her by it. Women should be able to go about their lives in peace without having to wear a burqa or a mumu. But why do these nice respectable guys keep showing up asking about how they ought to approach women I should wonder? Curious curious

 

[DaveC426913]

As a practical matter there is really no way to go out in public and not be noticed in one fashion or another. If for what ever reason you'd prefer not to be noticed then its pretty much on you to come up with a way of preventing it. As for men approaching you and overtly hitting on you that's a bit of a different bag than what we have been talking about. Where I seem to be thinking really only of people observing someone some of the people in this thread seem to automatically think of someone who is "ogling" in a more neanderthal manner such as making grunting noises and crude gestures or something. That's beyond looking, observing, or "getting an eye full" as the case may be.

There also seems to be a bit of dissonance in thought here (not necessarily from you) which I'll talk about in my response to Dave.

I think everyone's pretty agreed that there's a smooth transition from innocent look to ogle to hit on.

The argument is that some don't seem to care (or, perhaps, know) if they drift over the line. It was to this that I was addressing the 'potential harm'.

It also seems rather funny to me that this whole argument is rather dissonant with the advice typically given to any person asking about advice here on talking to women. Invariably they are told by almost everyone to go for it, just walk right up to her and talk to her, ask her for her number, ask her to have coffee with you. So many people here seem flabberghasted that so many guys just don't get this. Then we have this long drawn out argument here. Checking a female out is invading her personal space.

It is (or at least ogling her is).
And acting on it is a risk.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't occur.

Life is risk.


If this were about crossing the highway to go to the mall:
There are those here saying: 'Go to the mall! What's the harm? I don't care if something happens.'
I am simply saying: 'You can get hurt going to the mall. Anytime you cross a road.'
They: 'I will not admit that I should not cross the highway to go to the mall.'
Me: 'No one is saying don't go to the mall, just don't delude yourself into thinking there's no risk.'
(Excedpt that, if this were an accurate analogy, then I'd be saying you might damage the car, so...)





Anyway, I think I've made my case as best I can. I'm just reiterating now. I will try to back off and give this thread some breathing room.
.
.
.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think everyone's pretty agreed that there's a smooth transition from innocent look to ogle to hit on.

The argument is that some don't seem to care (or, perhaps, know) if they drift over the line. It was to this that I was addressing the 'potential harm'.

What is that transition? Two men can be checking a woman out and acting the same exact way. If the woman is attracted to one she will likely enjoy his attention and not consider it anything other than him checking her out and probably hope that it transitions into him hitting on her. If she is not attracted to the other than she may well consider the same exact actions to be uninvited 'ogling'. So where really does that transition occur except for in the mind of the person being observed? If it has nothing to do with the actions of the observer only the perceptions of the observed than the 'potential harm' is solely the responsibility of the observed. If you are a good and nice person who respects others' space and feel as though it is your responsibility that a person you check out or approach maybe be 'harmed' by your actions why would you approach them? You likely wouldn't. You'd be afraid, worried, nervous, feel guilty, feel like you should know better than to go talk to this person who is very likely going to be discomfited, disturbed, 'harmed' by your silly selfish actions... I'm glad you discovered this world view as an adult after you found your wife because I grew up thinking and feeling like that and I'll tell you it really sucks.

It is (or at least ogling her is).

Note that no one here is trying to say it is ok to make cat calls, thrust your hips out in the persons direction, lick your lips, and touch yourself suggestively while looking at a person. Nor is anyone advocating openly slack jawed, saliva dripping, wide eyed staring. If that is your definition of 'ogling' then realize that we are talking about different things here.

I'm talking about looking at someone. Observing them. 'Checking them out'.
That is not a violation of a persons personal space. As I already noted it is one of the most minimal ways you could possibly have contact with a person, to simply look at them. Photons being picked up by your eyes that have bounced off of the person. What is the difference between looking at someone and touching them? A vast ocean of difference. Touching a person is about one of the most intimate actions you could take. How do you relate one of the least intimate actions one could take to one of the most? It makes no sense. I might as well say that the other person is violating my personal space by being present, making noise, casting photons in my direction, giving off a scent.. at least it would make more sense.