sexual misconduct

[jacob]

@jp - The model dynamics of power is isomorphic to the one for sex and the one for financial markets and the one for politics and ... likely any system where total value is finite and is being optimized individually.

You can assume they're the same (power=sex) for simplicity or treat them as independent variables (allowing e.g. sex w/o power, such as porn/robots or power w/o sex, such as the recent meeting thread) for a more complex model. If you wanna go crazy, add money and status for a 4D model and ~4^4 = 256 possible interpretations of a primary variable as well as an equal number of pathways for transactions.

I would advise against "forcing a lens" with a general system model because there will be other people who use different lenses and so insisting on a particular lens means missing agent-type behaviors. More useful to allow each agent to have their own lens and make the dynamics as general as possible.

[C40]

I think the main problems with hoping/relying on White Knights is that men simply don't witness (or are not able to notice) the inappropriate behavior of other men. Most of it happens in the absence of other men, or happens out in broad daylight (maybe like the guy grabbing jenny's butt at the range) but without the context being knowable.

If I see a guy with a woman touch her butt, with no visible indication of her not liking it, I assume it's a normal type of PDA. If I was at the range and saw the guy grab a woman, her turn around and slap him or tell him to stop, and then him do it again - there's a really good chance I'd do something. But I can't recall a single time in my life where I saw that kind of thing happen.

if you 'good' guys would take the Cosbys of the world out to the woodshed early and often in life, women would only have to deal with the small stuff and wouldn't be so cranky about it. It gets old.

I gave this some thought - asking myself - what times in my life could/should I have stepped in? For the first one I could recall, I had to think back to when I was 17 years old. I'd heard (2nd hand) about something two of my friends had already done. These two guys had met a couple girls from another town. They were driving around with the girls in the car (“cruising” was a big thing there at the time). They drove out into the country a few miles, stopped the car, and said something along the lines of “alright if you girls want a ride back to town, it’s time to give us head”

And the second I can recall - my mid twenties, a friend told me about one of his methods for initiating sex with women he’d been dating when they had come over to his apartment and they'd been sitting on his couch talking for a while. He’d basically just pull his dick out. I’m pretty sure that at the time I told him he was an idiot, and tried explaining how stupid it was. It seemed that he was only doing it in situations where he was pretty darn certain the woman wanted to sleep with him. He said that so far, every time he’d done it, the women responded positively. In hindsight, I should have brought it up regularly and continued telling him to stop, because one day he did it to a woman who he’d misread - who didn’t want to sleep with him - and he got himself into jail for quite a while. The especially odd thing here is that this guy was quite smooth with women - at least in conversation. So it'd odd that he'd resort to such a crude tactic. (this relates to the next thing I want to bring up in another post - the huge discrepancy between the subtle signals women give and how poor men are at noticing and interpreting them)

So in my twenty years now of sexual maturity, there are two times that I can recall where I could/should have done more. It’s really not many chances to do right.

[George the original one]

I made it plenty clear. He continued, even after the University stepped in.
1. He knew, fully, what he was doing, and how unwelcome it was, and
2. There were no consequences.

From an enforcement point of view, there's no consequences because he does not meet the criteria for enforcement in this situation:
1) Touching has to occur
2) Or, if no touching, then there has to be a threat of authority (e.g. he can affect your advancement, ruin your lab work, etc.)

You not liking how close or how often he speaks to you is simply not going to hold up in any court.

[C40]

CS's example seemed pretty straightforward to me. The guy was being a intrusive/weird/off-putting. She told him to stop (a bunch of times). And he kept on doing it again and again. It's not ok.

(I think she did say that the guy was touching her - by sitting right up against her arm to arm in a lab where he had no reason to do so.)

[BRUTE]

@jacob -- great systems analysis, brute really enjoyed it.

brute is pretty much in the "helpless, going on stupid" boat. brute used to be a white knight, but never got rewarded for it. now he's pretty agnostic - he's learned that no matter what side he thinks he's on, human females definitely don't consider him on their side.

these last few years, with the actively anti-male behavior that some like CS here are putting forward ("sitting with spread legs is literally a threat of rape"), brute has simply checked out and decided he'd much rather watch the gender wars from his couch than be caught anywhere near a female.

this might sound crude, but it is really a logical conclusion, worked out rationally over decades.

as an atheist who actually likes women, the Pence rule is making more and more sense.

[Kriegsspiel]

I think there's a general failure to view this problem from a systems theory angle. This failure creates a lot of unintended side-effects. (I'm surprised nobody has brought up the VR/Sex robots yet in this thread. It seems highly relevant because it provides a technological solution to the current clusterfuck.)

Because it's not about sex, it's about power. Sex with a robot doesn't satisfy the craving for power. The chase has been removed from the equation. They have nothing to hold over the robot. They aren't copping a feel from an unwilling victim. They aren't putting moves on someone who's taken. They aren't forcing someone to submit. They can't stalk a robot.

It may be a bit more nuanced than that, if some prostitution-related studies are any indication: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... -rape.html

[C40]

Another important factor in this whole sexual misconduct thing is the huge gap between the subtle signals many women use and the poor perception of most men in picking up on them.

Women communicate with men using subtleties that most men are incapable of noticing and interpreting. It has taken me many years of experience actively trying to get better just to, for example, better interpret what women mean when they use the word "maybe" (Which, in my own real experiences has ranged all the way from "fuck you creep, I wish you could realize I'm totally not interested" to "come on already - follow me into the bathroom in this bar and pin me up against the wall").

I'm better than most men at picking up these subtleties (at least in certain contexts) and it's still hard. I'm out here reading books on body language and communication differences between men and women to try to get better at it. Even with intentional study, I will never be able to fully interpret the signals of many women. (it would take being able to read minds to be able to)

So, if I'm reading books and practicing my craft and I'm still often unsure of a woman's openness to pursuit or sex, consider how dangerous the waters are for men who are not good at it.

In Jenny's example, it may be easy to just assume the butt grabber is a jerk and a predator. But it's every bit as possible (IMO probably even more likely - and I'm going on only the brief bit of the story that jenny shared) that the guy had only pure intentions, but not the appropriate skill level to navigate trying to test the waters with a married woman. (for the sake of simplicity here, let's drop whatever judgements we may have about hitting on a married woman).

In the example of my friend who'd pull out his penis to try to initiate sex with interested women, I think he was doing this just because he had some kind of awkwardness or self-doubt in transitioning from good conversation to sex.

Sucking at hitting on women or initiating sex doesn't make it ok to assault or freak out women. But it's definitely part of the problem and I think a lot of the bad things men are doing are caused in large part by them being really bad at courting and seduction. One example of this that I'd benefited from is the Craigslist Penis Effect - where other men are so bad at meeting women online that they send unsolicited pictures of their penis and blow any chance they had - and that just by not being an idiot and sending pictures of my dick, I had a comparative step-up on many men.

Part of this courting skill problem is that men are not taught these skills. I went to school for about 25,000 hours and didn't learn a damn thing about it there. I had to learn it all on my own. I was totally clueless until about age 21. And then it's been a slow process of reading about it, testing the waters, talking to female friends, etc. Now more recently there is much better teaching and reminders to men to not rape or assault women, but there still seems to be little/no education on how to court and seduce women, pick up on their signals, etc. In fact, I've seen the pendulum swing so far that young men are told to ask permission at every step of the way ("Can I hold your hand? .... Can I put my arm around you?.... Can I kiss you?..... Can I squeeze your butt?.....) talk about a mood killer. In my experience, if I ask those kind of questions, women think I'm an unconfident wimp.

[C40]

And on a related note, I totally hate some aspects of how we're making this cultural shift towards women being closer to equals. I'm a firm believer that (the good kind of) feminism results in much better relationships and sex, and I'm disappointed and annoyed by many of the ways that progress is currently being driven - like when I see things like manspreading being blown completely out of proportion. It's just something men do. It's not a specific affront to women; it's a tiny affront to the entire world. Of course, these grasps and made-up problems and things being blown out of proportion don't invalidate the other truths of the current womens-rights progress, but for they water down the more real issues and progress.


My own thoughts on how to move in the right direction:
- Teaching young men how to court women - how to interpret a woman's signals - how to test the waters - how to know when it's acceptable to do certain things
- Continued scrutiny and prosecution of men who step too far over the line (my friend brought up today how much progress there seems to be in the last 20 years with an example: how the world is reacting to Kevin Spacey's offenses (career over, appropriate judgement) vs Michael Jackson's (where he paid off the families of kids he fucked, they dropped charges and probably accepted confidentiality agreements, and he moved on with his career almost scott-free)
- Teaching young women how to better know when and how to more assertively reject men's advances. (amplifying the 'no' signals)
- Culture shift towards it being more acceptable for women to more assertively show they're welcome to advances from a (specific) man, and teaching them more about how to do it (amplifying the 'yes' signals) (and also for them to make the advances themselves)

And a couple important ones to reduce the negative views of sex and some of their negative consequences:
- More complete acceptance of and funding of birth control - particularly the most effective methods like IUDs and vasectomies.
- More aggressive efforts to eliminate STDs. (an example of a need - there is a vaccine for HPV. This protects from the most common strains of HPV and would also literally save women's lives by preventing them from getting cervical cancer. But only about half of kids receive this vaccination, in large part because of worries from conservatives that the kids will take it as permission to go sex-crazy).

[sl-owl-orris]

So in my twenty years now of sexual maturity, there are two times that I can recall where I could/should have done more. It’s really not many chances to do right. At least half of my motivation for thinking and telling these friends to stop what they were doing was because of the risk of them getting in trouble.

But this is precisely what I, as a woman, would like you to do. As it was already pointed out, people have vastly different opinions on what’s OK and what is not. So, although it would be nice if more men came to women’s rescue when the situation doesn’t look quite right, I do understand if they would stay out of it for their own safety. However, I think men should react if other men they know behave inappropriately when it’s their friends or family. For example, if male friends are in a pub and one of them starts hitting on girls there but is crossing the line. Or if a father notices that his son thinks that he deserves a girl and she should make herself available – he should intervene. Sadly, not that many men take action in those situations, perhaps because it’s uncomfortable to talk about it, perhaps because they don’t want to strain the relationship. I don’t know. I notice that those behaviours often go unchallenged, even if there is a man who knows better.

The female showing cleavage will be seen by the market (all the males) as a passive signal that assets exist. She may be spoofing(posting orders w/o intention to sell---BTW this is illegal in financial markets) or actually looking to sell. She may be helpless, stupid, bandit, or intelligent when sending this signal. (For example, an example of being a bandit is in extracting value from males, e.g. free drinks; an example of helpless or naivety is insisting that "there's no signal" or "this shouldn't be a signal"; I'll leave the other examples to the reader ...). On to the males in the room.

This is a problem. It’s a problem that a woman showing cleavage will be seen by all the males as sending passive signals. It’s a problem that women can’t dress prettily or just to feel nice because they need to think constantly what the men will think. And to those of you who say that it’s obvious when it’s just aesthetically pleasing and when it’s slutty – it’s not. Yes, there are many women who dress specifically to attract male attention, but it shouldn’t mean that every attractive woman is in a desperate need of a man.

There is a video which went viral some time ago – a woman was walking on the streets of New York and the hidden camera recorded the catcalling she was subjected to. You can remind yourselves of it here.

I showed this video to one of my male friends and his initial reaction was: “No wonder that she got catcalled with what she was wearing?” I asked him to clarify and he said that she was dressed provocatively. In his mind, because she has curves and she is attractive, dressing in clothes that fit her, makes her provocative. She was wearing black jeans and a black t-shirt. I asked him what he would deem normal. After a long discussion, he admitted that he didn’t think this through and that she is not required to wear a burka not to be catcalled.

I have naturally large breasts, not humongous, but definitely larger than most of my friends’. It’s difficult for me to find clothes that fit me, and when they do, it’s possible to see that I have large breasts. If I want to hide the fact that I have large breasts, I wear things which are not stretchy or accentuated at the waist - I look shapeless and I feel unhappy looking like that, so I avoid this look. Where does it lead? Many men seem to think that having large breasts means that I’m seducing them, that my anatomy is a sign of a large libido or promiscuity. Even if I’m dressed as modestly as I possibly can some men crudely try to hit on me and either are surprised when they hear no, or don’t want to take no for an answer.

When I lived for a year in Italy, I couldn’t leave the apartment by myself – the only couple of times I tried that, men would grab me and try to lead in a dark corner. When I would leave the flat accompanied by my friends or boyfriend, men would still stare, catcall and make inappropriate comments. The UK is more civilised than Italy but still, this is not OK. I lead my life on guard, I need my husband to pick me up from the bus stop or the train station if I come back after dark, because I don’t feel safe. I don’t really drink in public. I avoid situations when I can be alone with a man, etc. It is not OK. Even in the UK, when I called the police because a man was harassing me, one of the first questions I heard was “What were you wearing?”

I know this is not an ideal world and I do think that for their own safety women should think what thought may cross a man’s mind when they put on a particular item of clothing, but at the same time, I really wish more people got educated and it wouldn’t have to be this way.

If showing cleavage is presenting assets, then living in warmer climates must be a hell for women. Being comfortable and not overheating by wearing layers of clothes may put women in danger.

Where do you cross the line? Since cleavage can be misleading, what about shorts? What about showing shoulders? What about the bare neck? What about sandals, since some men have foot fetish? What about wearing jewellery or makeup – that must be a signal that a woman wants to be attractive for a man, right? A woman shouldn’t try to look good, just to feel better, just to self-identify, or just because, right? A woman always has to choose her looks with men in mind? Is it not possible for a woman just to wear what she finds comfortable and/or pretty?

[C40]

So in my twenty years now of sexual maturity, there are two times that I can recall where I could/should have done more. It’s really not many chances to do right. At least half of my motivation for thinking and telling these friends to stop what they were doing was because of the risk of them getting in trouble.

But this is precisely what I, as a woman, would like you to do. As it was already pointed out, people have vastly different opinions on what’s OK and what is not. So, although it would be nice if more men came to women’s rescue when the situation doesn’t look quite right, I do understand if they would stay out of it for their own safety. However, I think men should react if other men they know behave inappropriately when it’s their friends or family. For example, if male friends are in a pub and one of them starts hitting on girls there but is crossing the line. Or if a father notices that his son thinks that he deserves a girl and she should make herself available – he should intervene. Sadly, not that many men take action in those situations, perhaps because it’s uncomfortable to talk about it, perhaps because they don’t want to strain the relationship. I don’t know. I notice that those behaviors often go unchallenged, even if there is a man who knows better.

Right. And I should have written that first quoted sentence differently. In the last 20 years, those were the only times I can recall where there was any opportunity to interject at all. In the first case (at age 17), I didn't say anything other than maybe to the person who relayed it to me. I was a pretty clueless and unconfident kid. In the second case, I did speak up. But as I said I wish I'd followed up multiple times because I learned too late that he'd kept on doing it.

It does seem that maybe the times where men will know that what another man is doing is wrong is when it's done by his friend or family (basically because that's the only time he understands the context). A problem on the friends side is that there is some stratification of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in groups of friends. So the guys who would interject don't have many friends who need interjections.

[sl-owl-orris]

- Teaching young women how to better know when and how to more assertively reject men's advances. (amplifying the 'no' signals)

This!

Both my parents emphasised that when rejecting a man I need to be considerate of his feelings. They also told me it’s not OK if a man touches me against my will but didn’t tell me what to do exactly and how to react. I had to find out by myself that most men don’t really listen to women / think that saying no is flirting and that I have to be super clear if not rude to make my point.

When I was 15 a girl in my class tied to make me go on a date with her male friend. She said he was great, super nice and really liked me. I said I was not interested. She insisted I that I made effort because he has liked me for a while and that he deserved a chance. I replied that I was flattered, but still not interested, so there was no point in going on a date. It would give him false hope and I didn't want to date him. She couldn't comprehend my refusal and tried to guilt-force me to do it and then became really mean. In this culture, a woman has to make herself available if a man wants her because otherwise, it's bad manners.

Most girls are taught not to hurt men’s feelings, to be passive, not to swear etc. Up to this day, it is difficult for me to say a swear word, even in another language, because of my upbringing. I don’t want to lead my life in fear so I took self-defence classes and the most difficult thing for me there was repeatedly kicking the punchbag and shouting “Get the fuck away!”. The instructor insisted that's the only effective way of dealing with persistent men.

Men should take a no for a no, but women should be aware that many men don’t do so, and know how to go about it.

[BRUTE]

But this is precisely what I, as a woman, would like you to do

oh, ok. that is what women would like men to do. to risk life and spend resources for.. what exactly?

brute is sorry to sound callous (not really), but calls like this, or the one by jennypenny asking "The Good Guys(tm)" to step up, are bandit behavior. it is asking a third party to risk life, liberty, status, and expend resources, for nothing.

The Good Guys fell for this type of behavior for a while, because white knighting used to get males laid. now, The Good Guys have adjusted. they know they're being taken for a ride, and they've stopped caring.

[C40]

I think sl-owl-orris and I are talking about times when speaking up is (also) for the good of one's own male friends and family. That's the main reason I spoke up to my friend - to try to keep him from showing his dick to the wrong woman and ending up in jail for it - which still happened anyway. There was no chance of us fighting or even getting into a disagreement.

As far as the calls to accost a stranger - what we could cynically view as calls to be the guy in the movies who goes "hey, bro, step off" and then gets in a fist fight, punches the bad guy's lights out, saves the day, and comes out unscathed well - the opportunities to even try this are extremely rare. So this might be a bit like how one could say 'oh yeah, I'd run into a burning building to save a child' knowing that the opportunity will never actually present itself

or... maybe I could be totally clueless to the inappropriate butt-grabbing that could be going on in front of me?

[sl-owl-orris]

oh, ok. that is what women would like men to do. to risk life and spend resources for.. what exactly?

It looks like you stopped reading my post at the first sentence, so I’ll paraphrase here for you what I wrote later. I think it would be nice if men stepped up if they thought that a woman may be in danger, but it’s fine if they don’t because that may put them at risk. What I wanted men to do is to react if men they are close to are crossing the line. To explain why certain things are not appropriate, if not to protect women, then to protect their male friends and family from disappointment or persecution. How is talking to your friend risking life?

I’m glad many people don’t think like you do, otherwise, we would live in a world where no one would save a drowning baby and whatnot.

[C40]

It seems obvious that he just didn't read well. Doesn't mean he'd let a baby die.

[sl-owl-orris]

It seems obvious that he just didn't read well. Doesn't mean he'd let a baby die.

It’s true he didn’t write that he would let a baby die. I did assume that people thinking like BRUTE might. My assumption may be wrong since it’s an assumption and it's only based on what's written in this thread. Let me explain how I got there:

it is asking a third party to risk life, liberty, status, and expend resources, for nothing

If you go by this train of thought it’s not worth risking your life if there is no direct gain. It’s not worth intervening when a woman may be endangered because there is no direct personal gain (since potentially saving the integrity or life clearly doesn’t matter). If a baby is drowning then your life is at stake, because you may drown as well, and there is no direct personal gain. If you apply brute’s philosophy here, you shouldn’t save the baby. That’s my train of thought.

Or are babies more important to save than women?

[BRUTE]

I’m glad many people don’t think like you do, otherwise, we would live in a world where no one would save a drowning baby and whatnot.

well, the trend seems to be going in brute's direction, what with human females complaining that nobody is stepping up for them.

this is a logical consequence, not a coincidence. those who cared got punished. they learned.

[saving-10-years]

@c40 Its hard to know what the context is when you see touching and sexualised behaviour between two people you don't know. When it involves people you do know (at the receiving or giving end of what appears to be unwanted sexual approaches) then I see that you did act. Reaction could be keeping a watchful eye on situations where you think (from experience) things might get out of control, noting the behaviour and commenting on it so that others question it also, providing a listening ear, collaboration that it happened and was _not_ reciprocated (you can be so stunned when casual assault happens that you question yourself about what just occurred), perhaps offer an escort home or to somewhere safe to take a break, support in making a report, etc. Its not about males fighting over the females.

Earlier I offered my own story of a 'white knight', but no violence occurred there, just clear communication by three concerned male friends that I was _not_ interested in this guys attentions or company. At all. My polite rebuffs were not working. I then spent the rest of the night analysing and re-examining how I managed to mislead or misread this guy. Disgusted that at 24 I had not wised up and needed rescuing. My DH offered a friendly ear and a different perspective and never went home.

Thanks at @sl-owl-orris for the video linked to - revealing but sadly familiar stuff. Did those who catcalled and tried to talk to a woman who was clearly not interested (purposeful stride and no eye contact) think that this might lead to success? Or is there some other reward here? (I thought the guy who kept pace with her without comment for 5 mins was trying to prove something - but what?)

[The Old Man]

+100 Brute. Have to agree. Chivalry is dead. Feminism killed chivalry. Chivalry is the reason that men would risk their lives for some random woman. Chivalry is men opening doors for women; it is also about men putting their lives on the line for women's welfare. I despise when women callously think it is OK for me to risk my life to protect a woman from her own stupid decisions. Women need to take personal responsibility for their actions. Being a White Knight is for morons.

[Scott 2]

I think the good vs. bad run in separate circles, making creation of a peer group feedback loop difficult.

I don't want to spend time around the bad actors either. Their asshole behavior isn't limited to sexual interactions. I get them out of my life asap and minimize time in places they will be. No bars, clubs or even buses for me. It's just not worth it.

I'm fortunate to have the means to avoid the problems. I think self selection like this happens often, and it makes fixing culture in the bad actor echo chamber especially difficult.