Sexual Harassment vs Dating in the Real World I

After dissecting Stoya's cry for attention in What exactly is Sexual Harassment?, I asked myself whether there is a plausible definition of sexual harassment. As I have written in that article, one could probably agree on drawing a line physically aggressive maneuvers when it is clear that this is uncalled for. I do not intend to paint men in a bad light, however.

It's apparently quite popular to depict men as sexist swine who commit countless acts of "street harassment" and grope unsuspecting women. However, speaking from my perspective as a reasonably attractive slender 6'3" guy, I can tell you that I've had to endure countless acts of "sexual harassment". I can't even count how many times women have rubbed their tits against me as they were walking past me in the club. The more daring (drunk) ones have little qualms pinching the ass of men that are clearly out of their league. (Why is it almost always the absolutely plain and average if not unattractive looking women who do that?)

Sure, feminists claim that it's always men who approach women who are not interested in them but, believe it or not, any guy with options knows full well what it is like to be hit on by a woman you couldn't fuck with all the Viagra in the world. If it is true, as women claim, that men are much more visual than women, which I doubt, then it is infinitely worse to be a guy who gets hit on by an ugly chick than the other way around, but let's not shove too much logic down the collective throat of feminists.

On the other hand, in the presence of mutual physical attraction, things can move pretty quickly. I'm not going to tell one of my X-rated stories, but only want to draw attention to the fact that those women certainly appreciated my initiative. Of course I wouldn't go around grabbing the ass of some woman who doesn't seem to be interested.

Just due to the way dating and mating works in Western society, the man has to make the initiative. Women hardly ever approach you, and at best you get mixed signals. Women would rather keep the option of telling themselves that they weren't really interested in some guy who turns them down or just ignores them than clearly show their interest and deal with the not necessarily pleasant feeling of rejection. This is reality. Now, let's look at the fantasies that feminist brains develop.

As I wrote in the introduction, I did some research on definitions of sexual harassment. I thought that I should look for a country that has a reputation of being a feminist nanny state, ideally English-speaking. Australia turned out to be a prime candidate. Then there is the fact that universities are a hotbed of feminism, while sexually healthy women in the real world normally don't think that much of it. After a few minutes, I hit a gold minet: A publicly accessible "online training course" of Monash University on the topic of sexual harassment.

Look what I found:

Sexual harassment occurs when a person's behaviour is:
• unwelcome
• of a sexual nature, and
• a reasonable person would consider could offend, humiliate or intimidate.

This is all rather vague, so let's have a look at the elaborations on that website:

What constitutes UNWELCOME behaviour?
Unwelcome means that the behaviour is uninvited and unsolicited and the person subjected to it finds it undesirable, offensive, humiliating or intimidating.

I think the key word here is "undesirable". In case some feminist head case reads this and starts hyperventilating: no, I don't promote clearly invasive behavior in the face of opposition. However, because women do not give you clear signals at all (!), you can't know whether she's really interested without approaching her.

Feminists seem to picture sexual interactions as some kind of negotiation in which both sides clearly tell the other what they want, and in which perfect information is a given. But the last time I checked, women didn't have bright neon signs hovering over their head that indicated whether they were available, how old they were, how they were like in bed, or whether they were mentally stable. Feminist porn starlet Stoya thinks that a guy who compliments her on her dress is sexually harassing her --- if she doesn't find him attractive. If she does, then all is fine and dandy. I guess nothing of this strikes you as problematic if you're a woman. Of course, Virginia, you totally have a right to be indignant because the guy that just said that he likes your smile didn't look like ten million dollars. What a disgusting pig!

On the other hand, as a guy you're in quite some quandary. You know you have to approach because girls are just so incredibly passive. No, ladies, glancing at some guy for a fraction of a second and then looking down at the floor for a minute or so does not constitute "hitting on someone". That some of the women you hit on won't be interested in you is just a fact of life. Just as I quickly ignored the average-looking women who dared to hit on me in clubs or on campus, and didn't think much of it, so can a woman just move on if she doesn't like a guy. After all, it's not as if they've got dozens of Quasimodos hitting on them day after day.

Let's hand the mike to Monash University again:

Under the law, it is irrelevant if the behaviour does not offend everyone or has been an accepted feature of the work or learning environment in the past. Individuals react and perceive behaviour in different ways. A person may think their behaviour is harmless and innocent while the recipient of that behaviour may find it distasteful and hurtful.

OK, but how the f*ck is a guy supposed to know? Some days ago, Black Pill mentioned in a comment that former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was accused of sexual harassment for remarking to some woman that she was as tall as his wife. I guess anything goes if you want to feel "sexually harassed" and make some money on the side through settlements. I hope I don't have to spell out in detail why this is problematic.

If you think that this was bad enough already, then Monash University would like to have a word with you because according to the feminists who wrote up that drivel, sexual harassment doesn't even have to be intentional:

The definition of sexual harassment does not require intent on the part of the person being accused but is based on the subjective experience of offence, humiliation or intimidation. Innocent intention cannot be used as a defence in sexual harassment cases and staff and students at Monash have an obligation to be aware of what is likely to constitute sexual harassment and to refrain from these actions. 

Sexual harassment is known to have severe consequences for those subjected to it impacting on their ability to perform at work or study and often on their personal lives. Complaints of sexual harassment at Monash must be taken seriously.

Yes, read that again! You're not guilty of sexual harassment due to clear objective criteria but simply because someone thinks some action constitutes sexual harassment, even if every sane person would only shake his head, like in the case of Michael Cain. Or think of that absurd Adria Richards case some months ago, where she first got some developers fired because she made a stink over an allegedly sexist joke that was due to her not knowing or pretending to not know that "forking" and "dongle" are technical terms. Later on she was let go herself, as a direct consequence of her bigotry and the bad light she put her employer in.

I think it's safe to say that we've established that there is a fundamental implausibility with the generous feminist interpretation of "sexual harassment". In part II of this article I will discuss more real world examples, which will further reinforce this point.

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