sexual misconduct

[Loner]

Your story from the gun range is quite disgusting. I have no trouble imagining that there is much worse stuff happening behind closed doors.

Discussing those topics intelligently in public, though, is becoming harder and harder. Your message is thoughtfully written, but most of what we hear, or what I hear at least, sounds more like a covert fight against men (for power). One clue is that the mainstream dialogue on this seems to be a bit out of whack (like on so many other topics, including PF). The meaning of “harassment”, for instance, seems to be losing its substance.

This sign, for instance, has apparently appeared in France’s public spaces: http://www.apacom-aquitaine.com/wp-cont ... eading.jpg

The poster reads “Manspreading: Male tendency to sit with leads spread open. To exhibit is also to harass.” It is accompanied by a picture of a guy sitting, with legs apart.

Maybe there’s something seriously wrong with me, but it seems like sitting like that is at most impolite because other people will feel uncomfortable sitting beside you. It doesn’t appear much worst that women putting their bags on the seat beside them or something, and I wouldn’t call that “harassment”. It is also not obvious to me whether this poster’s true intent is to reduce actual harassment or to reduce men. Things like this remind me of one of Paul Graham’s essay (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html).

As a risk management strategy, I think a lot of guys will also refuse discussing such topic with anyone else than close people they can trust (and also on anonymous forums with smart open-minded individuals). For example, I wouldn’t let my thoughts known about the poster mentioned higher up to my (21 y.o., SJW) sister because she wouldn’t discuss it. She’d call me a sexist pig.

A thoughtful post like yours does elicit sympathy. Insults do not. I think a lot of good men realize that problems like those you mention are common, but recoil at being slung insults. I think the approach you have, of giving examples of what guys should do, is a much better strategy (if the real object is to reduce the problem; maybe not if it’s a power thing).

Defending women in unambiguous harassment situations makes sense, if you ask me, and I think you should intervene if you see such a thing. It’s just not always unambiguous. A situation like that you mention (“too touchy and in a creepy way”), could also be described as thrilling for another. (I’m not meaning to invalidate how you felt about your situation. I wasn’t there, and I believe you that it was too touchy and creepy.) Just to say that different situations will be interpreted in different ways. A situation like CS mentions (sitting close and talking for too long), is certainly unpleasant, but guys are also subject to that from stronger awkward guys, and I think it's just part of managing life. Grabbing body parts is different, but this particular anecdote sounds a bit like this guy is clueless, not a harrasing rapist. Maybe you (CS) just didn't make it clear he should "leave you the fuck alone". I know you say you said it, but for having overheard girls conversation, I also know that some girls will "push you away" but really just like being chased.

It’s a really difficult topic, that's for sure.

Further readings: David Foster Wallace’s Ticket to the Fair. The relevant anecdote starts at ”11:50 A.M.” The woman’s attitude to the situation she finds herself in sort of reminds me of what I think 7W5’s would be.

https://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... 001729.pdf

[CS]

A situation like CS mentions (sitting close and talking for too long), is certainly unpleasant, but guys are also subject to that from stronger awkward guys, and I think it's just part of managing life. Grabbing body parts is different, but this particular anecdote sounds a bit like this guy is clueless, not a harrasing rapist. Maybe you (CS) just didn't make it clear he should "leave you the fuck alone".

I want to point out that this is victim blaming. This, in part, is why women don't speak up - because they aren't believed. 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.

As far as man spreading, that is just as bad as they are making it out to be. Women are pressured to be polite, quiet, pleasant, no matter what unpleasantness is being pushed onto them. The man spreading is sending a clear message of power - "I deserve to have space, and I have the right to take it from you." That "it" can then go on to a lot of things - your space, your sexuality, your life.

From reading your response, I would guess you have never actually felt unsafe, or rarely (inconvenience is not the same as heart in your throat fear), so the concept of dealing with this daily is foreign to you.

[BRUTE]

Maybe you (CS) just didn't make it clear he should "leave you the fuck alone".

brute has become quite cynical about this. he's experienced women complaining about "stalkers" that "just won't leave them alone when told to fuck off". when brute asked to see the relevant text conversation on her phone, the woman's last "fuck off" comment to the "stalker" was literally "xoxo ttyl "

in her mind, "xoxo" (==kisses and hugs) was apparently an obvious "fuck off" to someone she claimed to perceive as a stalker. yet from brute's view, it was impossible for the man to even know his advances weren't welcome - all her responses were, if taken literally, clear invitations and flirtations. he would have to have been a mind reader.

when he was young, a woman told brute about her belief that human males and females are fundamentally incompatible, and are just tricked into sustaining humanity by hormones that flood them in their youth. at the time, brute thought the woman was old and bitter. now, brute is old and bitter, and he believes she was right.

[BRUTE]

The man spreading is sending a clear message of power - "I deserve to have space, and I have the right to take it from you." That "it" can then go on to a lot of things - your space, your sexuality, your life.

this is why humans can't have nice things

[rref]

.

[C40]

what's interesting about CK is that, apparently, he asked for consent beforehand, and got it.

If what I've read is accurate:
- He sometimes just went ahead and did it without asking (for example - reports of women talking to him on the phone and being able to hear that he was masturbating (not sure exactly how).
- He sometimes did it in totally inappropriate situations - like he'd ask a woman AT WORK with who he had no type of intimacy with.
- He sometimes did it after he asked and women said no.

[BRUTE]

ok, that sounds less ambiguous. tbh, brute totally missed the Spacey and CK things this week. maybe it's news burnout.

[saving-10-years]

@jennypenny Thanks for raising this. I am a decade older than you and so have had a further 10 years to try and understand all this. When I was younger, unwanted male attention was a big thing in my life. Guys frotting against me in bus queues, complete strangers making comments about my boobs, waiters whose eyes were so comically falling out of their heads trying to serve food while fixated on my cleavage* that everyone at the table was laughing. I started dating my husband the evening that he and a few other male friends (small stature) stood up to a large sized and deluded would-be stalker who was whispering X-rated 'nothings' into my ear at a pub. They stood around him like a trio of angry munchkins and told him that I wanted him to leave me alone! I covered up (clothing wise) through my 20s and 30s, but looking back my main 'defence' was that from my teens to my late 30s (until motherhood) many and sometimes most of my friends have been men. I've thus had lots of positive role models to offset the bad encounters and have been sensitised by male comments and warnings to realise that even the guy I am having a deep philosophical discussion with at the pub may be motivated less by my intellect than the remote chance of getting into my pants at some stage.

Assault (any form) and inappropriate sexual advances towards those with less power (whatever the gender) is deeply unpleasant and unnecessary. I did women's studies at a time when the message was that unwanted sexual assault and sexually intimidating behaviour was about power more than sexual desire. The harassment claims that are coming out now around power back this view up. I don't equate this with the socially rude man-spreading behaviour (maybe I am missing something). In my day (yep old enough to say that) we would mock someone who did that and assume they did not realise how stupid they looked. Maybe what we need is a box office hit comedy that gets the message across. If manspreading is really about power it misses the mark doesn't it. That guy is being talked about for the wrong reasons.

@THF, my son's uni has made all students watch a sexual consent film. Its quite a good one and may appeal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 It equates consent to sex to consent to drink tea and uses humour. The stuff that is going on within US campuses is very worrying.

My DS (and I assume @JP's sons too) are heart warming in their attitude to women and gender differences. He sees everyone as an individual and essentially private person who he should not impose on or assume about. Introvert. His dating success is yet to take off and that is another sort of concern - he and his more considerate male friends are not winning dates.

* You don't need to be wearing a particularly revealing top for a waiter to get a distracting view from their angle.

[CS]

Maybe you (CS) just didn't make it clear he should "leave you the fuck alone".

brute has become quite cynical about this. he's experienced women complaining about "stalkers" that "just won't leave them alone when told to fuck off". when brute asked to see the relevant text conversation on her phone, the woman's last "fuck off" comment to the "stalker" was literally "xoxo ttyl "

My words were "leave me alone. I don't want to talk to you" as he sat there at my desk inches from me (my desk, btw, was not close to any other desk.).

You story aside, the fact that I have had to say that "I made it clear" THREE TIMES in the one thread is a perfect example of how women aren't listened to/taken seriously. In other groups I've heard a lot of complaining of how the Kevin Spacey thing was dealt with (victim was a man) verses the years and years of detail and victim shaming that goes on for the other sex (huge numbers of allegations with no effects for years for Weinstein, Trump... how about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas?)

I think this is why shit has hit the fan recently - women are reaching a critical mass with economic power and no longer dependent on the men to do something about it. And the women are pissed.

[jennypenny]

It's interesting to read everyone's perspectives. It also shows that everyone ends up a victim of this somehow, whether it's the women or people forced to endure ridiculous college or workplace rules. I think that's the most important reason to discuss this ... all of us are victims.

I don't really equate stuff like manspreading or talking over women with sexual misconduct. Those actions don't make me feel unsafe. It's also been pointed out that anyone who's quiet or non-confrontational can be the victim of that kind of behavior. That's more the 'Lean In' type of stuff and about learning how to navigate the social world you inhabit. (FYI ... Learning how to navigate a world full of powerful women like in Stepford can be just as difficult as learning how to navigate a corporation or university. Women can be vicious.)

I also don't equate normal dating behavior with the behavior of sexual predators. There's a difference that most of us can recognize. A person who's making advances because they want to date you, even if they are coming on too strong, is very different than a person who's trying to make inappropriate sexual advances that are more about power than a relationship. If the guy at the gun range was doing that stuff because he was trying to start a relationship with me, I would tell him that he was crossing the line and should back off, but I would think he was just boorish and inept. The fact that he was only doing it when DH wasn't around and offering perks at the range while doing it suggests a completely different mindset that's more predatory in nature. If attempts to date progressed into stalking, then that too is predatory in nature. I know the lines aren't completely clear cut, but it's not that difficult to see the difference.

I personally draw a distinction between behavior that's meant to persuade or elicit a positive response vs. one that's meant to elicit fear or suggest consequences for not consenting (or that consent is nonessential or will be obtained by any means necessary).

My choice of words wrt good guys and bad guys might not be best, but I'm going to stick with it. I'm really only talking about the predators or the people so clueless that they don't know where the line is. There are some bad people out there ... sexual predators, sociopaths, psychopaths ... and IMO we need to be willing to recognize them for what they are. If we were more willing to call out that kind of inappropriate behavior immediately and unequivocally, it might prevent people acting on their baser instincts. There are laws in place for the more egregious stuff, but a layer of unwavering social pressure to prevent what I called the softer offenses would help with some of this.

I'll add women to this because predatory behavior should be called out regardless of gender. I'm specifically talking about sexual predators and given the biology, it tends to be a male on female problem, but the rules should apply to everyone. I've known women who call foul afterwards because of regret and that's total bullshit and should be called out as well. I've also known women who get intoxicated regularly and then point fingers at men ... also very wrong. As women, we need to be willing to acknowledge this stuff and act just as outraged. After all, it jeopardizes our safety by delegitimizing the issue. How many times this week have the Duke Lacrosse team incident or UVa Rolling Stone piece been mentioned? Like that's an excuse for ignoring the entire issue.


@S10Y -- Funny that we've shared similar experiences. That incident I mentioned at the gun range was only minor compared to other things I've endured. I only shared it because it was typical and didn't get too personal. I've had many experiences like yours with guys spilling drinks on me or rubbing up against me somehow. It drove me nuts when people told me it was because I was busty, like that made it ok somehow. Women would be jealous and men made it sound like their frontal lobes shut off at the sight of anything bigger than a C cup. I also always hung around with men too. I assumed it was because of my interests but now I"m wondering about what you said. Interesting.

edit: My comment about good guys comes from feeling like the guys who look the other way are kind of like 'good germans' if you know what I mean. I don't mean to equate the two situations, but the attitude is similar.

[CS]

@rref

My post was based on your response + typical reactions of people in power. It is notoriously hard to wrest power away from those who have it and benefit the most. They are in a good spot, so will their conscience move them away from the prime spot by the fire? More often than not, no. History is rife with examples... the most notorious ones are slavery and apartheid, but really, any place there is a power differential, it is going to take a lot of work and social pressure to change it when a great many people don't want to (i.e. they are comfortable). It has been how long since slavery was abolished in this country? And yet black people are still suffering. A black woman, who has a double power wammy differential gets paid sixty cents to the dollar a white man gets. Sixty cents. (How many black women are going for ERE, I wonder?)

Also, see my posting above about not being taken seriously (perennial problem for women on any topic, much less harassment). This is something your original response had in spades (casting doubt on the veracity of the women's judgement).

@Jennypenny

I liked your comment about guys not doing anything. I think it was spot on. Social approval is a strong factor most people's lives. If the predators knew other guys would shun them for acting inappropriately towards women, it would do a lot to curb this behavior. It is not anything illegal like assault, (out to the woodshed), but it also makes it clear that they are going be lonely bucks if they don't play well with the does.

The thing about talking over women, and man spreading, and street harassment is that theses are all part of a spectrum, but even the smallest infraction in lack of respect allows the next largest one to happen. Do you know the parable about the camel's nose in the tent? I firmly believe that someone thinking they can talk over a person is not all that far from violating their boundaries in other ways. It fosters a belief that the other is 'less than', which allows all sorts of misdeeds.

@saving10years
Your son sounds wonderful. I hope he and his friends are rewarded with dates soon.

Also, your story about the night you met your husband is hilarious. It was good to hear your views as a woman about ten years older - and with a son no less. I am hopeful things are going to continue to get better for women - which means for men too.

[saving-10-years]

the fact that I have had to say that "I made it clear" THREE TIMES in the one thread is a perfect example of how women aren't listened to/taken seriously

@cs. You are angry and you may have cause (although I feel its stretch to call this particular behaviour predatory or sexual misconduct). What I wanted to point out was that requests for clarification here could be more related to not knowing you and your context and thus (my view anyhow) more reasonable than you suggest. We know some things about each other here (or at least think we do) but its helpful if when any of us state something like 'I made things clear' or 'he knew' we give an example of how we made things clear or why we are sure that he knew. Then you may get acceptance of your points rather than queries. The message is not 'we don't believe you' but 'how did you do it/why do you think this'.

[CS]

@savings10years

I am not particularly angry, no (a big no-no for women, btw, in our culture - being angry that is). I made the capital letters to emphasize a point. I'm sorry but I didn't see any actual questions about my clarity in the responses. I saw suggestions that I didn't make it clear. There is a difference - a huge difference, with one being a question, and one being shade on my judgement, as well as my ability to communicate clearly.

I almost didn't finish my PhD because every time I came into the lab I had to deal with uncomfortable things from that man. Please tell me how this isn't harassment. (Again, questions about judgement).

However, I have made the decision to point out these things. This group, much more than other's I've dealt with, can discuss things without it turning into a personal insults and other scary interactions.

I'd say the default reaction in a lot of this country is to blame the women and/or make it her responsibility to deal with an issue without making others feel uncomfortable. This is ingrained in a lot of little reactions that build to the overall big picture that effectively silences women. I am doing my (little) part here by point out instances of these actions.

Your comment does ties into another frequent action - there is more of a need/demand for a woman to prove she did something correctly (assumption of incompetence), then for men, where it is take for granted they did do it correctly (assumption of competence). It is impossible to answer this, but would you have been as likely to ask a man to prove he made something clear, or to even think was reasonable to do so? These subtle biases have a large overall effect. I'm not saying I'm not guilty of them myself, but I'm trying to be more aware of them. It is dang hard.

When I went to college for undergrad, one of the other female physics students was having a discussion with the prof about his use of gendered language. I thought it was a bit out there (like completely irrelevant to my life). Come to find, she was twenty years ahead of me in awareness. I wonder what she is doing now.

[rref]

.

[CS]

@rref

I am glad a lot of people think differently than you do. I truly believe that all are better by working together as equals. One person winning a the expense of others makes all poorer.

[saving-10-years]

would you have been as likely to ask a man to prove he made something clear, or to even think was reasonable to do so?

Yes. I would (and have done so). My husband is nodding in agreement. I don't have (and may never have had) a problem with challenging authority. Male or otherwise. Keeping my mouth shut for the sake of self-interest? Now that would be a problem ...

[rref]

.

[jennypenny]

@CS -- We'll have to agree to disagree. I really don't put manspreading on a spectrum with sexual predators. I can stand up for myself in most situations and don't need men to do it for me or an explicit rule to make things fair. I would rather focus on the really egregious stuff because I worry that burning energy on the smaller stuff reduces the overall effectiveness of the effort and annoys potential allies in the process (like the good guys). I hate to see serious offenses reduced to memes because we've taken the argument too far and caught up too many fish in the net.

[jacob]

My DS (and I assume @JP's sons too) are heart warming in their attitude to women and gender differences. He sees everyone as an individual and essentially private person who he should not impose on or assume about. Introvert. His dating success is yet to take off and that is another sort of concern - he and his more considerate male friends are not winning dates.

Bingo! And there's a reason for that ...

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, the issue is a systems problem, there's a lot of things to be considered and it's easy to end up wasting time focusing on debating some irrelevant aspect of it, so let me just throw out some things for the thread to consider.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window seems hugely important for two reasons. First, everybody has different Overton windows. Compare a hyper liberal humanities college with a truck stop. In more general terms, it's quite easy to find people, even on this forum, where the Overton windows don't even overlap! Second, some people have very narrow Overton windows; some have wider ones. If one's Overton window is very narrow, one will be pissed off about just about everything. With people increasingly living in their own bubbles, Overton windows are narrowing. This in turn causes them to overlap less.
• Within the "average Overton" window [of society], we have all the little rules for social behavior that makes interaction at least semi-functional in the sense that people achieve their ends---that being what's selected for; not whether people feel good in the process. The average Overton window is shifting rapidly in the US! (Note, some countries are already past this transition, and others are just getting there.) This means that the complex rule system that guided previous behavior is out the window and getting replaced with simpler ad hoc rules ... e.g. the Mike Pence rule, also seen above. This is an unintended side-effect but the response makes perfect sense within the system.
• The existing asymmetry between the gender strategies for hooking up. One side is passive and selective. The other side is aggressive and competing. As observed in almost all species. Signal theory is IMPORTANT here. Since "competition capital" is limited, this may explain why "other men" don't automatically come to the rescue. There's simply very little personal upside to them and a very large personal downside to stepping in (loss in male hierarchy, risk of fight).
• Changing rules in a system with multiple players with competing interests is analogous to the market system. Such systems will always try to settle so that costs and rewards are shared or balanced out. If you try to impose external rules, this will change cost/rewards and it will find new equilibrium prices or new outlets (think black markets). If volatility gets too crazy, some may decide not to play at all. (This is also observed; e.g. young men deciding that pursuing relationships is simply not worth it.)
• When there are competing interests, people will try to argue for maximizing their end of the deal. One can assume it's rare for people to maximize both ends insofar the odds of "trading" with that person again is low. See, game theory and especially prisoner's dilemma.
• When dealing with systems and rules, Cipolla's description of humans being either helpless, stupid, bandit, or intelligent is useful. All four archtypes are found in both genders. Because the rule set is newish, most of the work of figuring it out falls on the humans rather than the existing system. Also consider how a given system (of behavior) might favor bandits or some other type compared to other systems.

So within this systems framework consider whether any proposed rule deals fairly with the existing asymmetry (feel free to question the continued existence/desirability of the asymmetry), that is, whether everybody gets a "fair price" (a fair price is the price where you're agnostic about which side you're taking; golden rule) by putting a rule in place. Also consider whether a proposed rule-set allows the asymmetry to be preserved.

For example, as a way to understand the proposed "white knight" rule, lets consider it in stereotypical model terms within the framework. Pay attention to all the technical terms, I'll be introducing and using them deliberately.

Introduce one female agent and a few male agents.

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.

The males on detecting the passive asset signal will pursue several different active strategies (think behavior; strategy doesn't imply intelligent. It could also be bandit, helpless, and stupid). Active is a key word here if you want to understand motivations. The strategy has to be active insofar the female has a passive order on display ... or in human terms, insofar she wants to be noticed and wooed. (Refer back to above for her possible motivations.)

First, an active strategy has a cost. This cost comes in the form of fixed costs and risk costs. The reward is, obviously, acquiring the asset or part of it (partial fill, option, warrant).

Males seek to gain as much value for as little cost (effort) as possible. Unlike the females, passive (limit) orders are quite ineffective(*). (In order for a trade to happen, one side must go active... otherwise people are just sitting there.) Males therefore have to hit (in trading, the same term is used). Being considerate/passive, etc. is a losing strategy for interacting with another limit order insofar there's competition. (Note: If financial markets where as asymmetric as the dating market, it would look and behave quite differently.)

(*) As per the quote, a male putting up a "I'm a considerate guy who makes no assumptions and impositions"-signal is not going to have females competing for him; realistically, he might not even get a single hit.

So males [have to] engage in their own active signalling behavior. Lets call this the mating display.

This mating display is a fixed cost to the male. E.g. paying for drinks, dinner, expensive cars, learning the art of interesting conversation, ... The expense also have optionality features. It's a bit like buying call options hoping they will pay off. One can buy tonnes of cheap low probability ones. A few expensive high-prob. One can buy the index. Yadda yadda. This resource stream goes to the female asset holder, who is naturally interested in maintaining it(?). She will have her own strategies for maximizing this revenue stream. E.g. she can increase the value of her assets or increase the signal display of the perceived value ...

This asymmetry creates a market equilibrium of "clearing prices". If the price on either the buyer or seller side is too high, some people will simply go home (sit on cash). Now lets consider some black hat behavior ...

Stealing bumps and touches from the asset without paying is a bandit behavior. It's a free-rider issue (and incidentally, free-riding is also illegal in financial markets) that extracts value that the bandit gets. Someone will have to pay it. It's either the female (asset owner) or other males (or females, but lets keep this parsimonious since we're dealing with stereotypes here). A lot of the current media attention is on this behavior. This price has generally been paid by asset owner.

There's a suggestion above that other males should pay it and there's some resistance to this idea. Why is there resistance? Lets introduce a male agent (white knight) and consider his fair price for the transaction. In confronting other males, there's high risk. A fight has a huge cost. But even a verbal confrontation might lower the white knight's status amongst his competitors. Rarely does a male get points from other males by telling them that they're acting inappropriately. (This also holds in all other places. Everybody hates enforcers acting against them.) More importantly, there's rarely any material reward from the asset owner either. A "thank you" << risk of getting clobbered in a fight / permanent loss of hierarchy status. Such policing also takes energy away from their own strategies.

Therefore, one way to understand why white knight behavior is not happening more often is that the potential reward is too low. IOW, in my simple model of the inherent complexity, white knight behavior exists in proportion to how much females are rewarding males who fight other males on their behalf. (Note IRL how it exists but is far from universal. Therefore, one may conclude that some females reward it but not that many.)

Add: I should probably finish up by adding some comments about the possible end state of the current clusterfuck. The intelligent solution seems to be that both sides (male and female) start trading more actively, that is, hitting the other side. This means females actively wooing passive (Mr Considerate) males. I think we see a little bit (a few percent?) of that happening. If active/passive behavior achieves symmetry between genders, things will change a lot. But would females be willing to go along with this and start paying active strategy costs? The helpless solution is males simply refuse to play; e.g. "rules (regulatory costs) are now so complicated that being single is the better value proposition.) The helpless solution can devolve into the stupid solution insofar males start avoiding females altogether not just in dating but also in work situations (Mike Pence rule) resulting in value destruction for both sides, e.g. THF's college. And of course, since solutions don't happen instantaneously, having people withdraw from the []market[/i] leaves more room for other players, i.e. bandits.

[jennypenny]

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.