If you get taken to court for flirting, you’re not doing it right.
Or exactly right. 
I don’t even know why I am discussing real life with a Canadian.
While theoretically any transgression can be viewed in the light of harassment, I have to ask what such a view actually does? Deontology as a system of ethics is fraught with difficulties and pitfalls. When the question of legal action comes into play, we ought reserve that for extreme cases. Now, admittedly, what constitutes an ‘extreme’ case is dependent on the perspective of the perceiver as well as their society. But so what? Ideally, people behave like adults even when others do not. The problem in America is that there is a substantial financial motivation for not behaving like an adult when others do not and that leads to a wide variety of frivolous lawsuits. But that is because in America, the only protection that the worker (anybody, ultimately) has is litigation. Wheels within wheels, what can you do?
Take what happened this morning during my lab meeting. My PI (boss) is a good guy, but notoriously moody especially around grant time (even afterwards, since he has to play catch-up on other activities he neglected). On top of that, our tech was late this morning so my PI couldn’t finish a vital activity before lab meeting. A graduate student was presenting, and the data reflected that. The graduate student is also an African-American from the deep South whose patios is quite thick. Well, he wasn’t having it today and really reamed into her for every little detail. Oftentimes, because he was angry and distracted by situations outside of her presentation but those caused him to miss a detail or two, which he insisted hadn’t been addressed.
Legally, if she wanted, she could probably construct a case for harassment (verbal abuse at the workplace) and possibly a racial discrimination suit (there are some people in the lab who are not proficient in English, regardless of dialect). But that sort of absolutist thinking hits a brick wall when it hits the real world. For one thing, academia is a holdover from the Middle Ages and so is incredibly feudal and that sort of behavior is simply part of the culture, but furthermore, she understands that he didn’t mean anything malicious by it even though his actions were malicious. There is no need for a suit, it doesn’t make sense. Now consider a situation where the intent isn’t even malicious! That doesn’t make it ‘right’ (however you interpret that term) but flirtation is a normal part of living. Attractive people, young people, and especially attractive young people (and especially especially females since we are culturally conditioned to view the goodness of flirtation in a gender-dependent manner) are flirted with more. Like most things in life, this offers its advantages and disadvantages. Where that particular balance lies depends on the individual and their experience.
But we don’t live in a world of our choosing, and so we assent to certain things that are beyond our control. Provided the activities in question don’t deviate too far from normal, we accept them. Litigation serves to punish those who deviate from what is context-acceptable in a substantial way. I don’t think Faust’s example qualifies, given the context.
Xunzian - yes! YESSSSSSS!
Context.
That’s what is missing from Cy’s position, despite that he pays lips service to it.
Xunzian,
I give you tremendous credit for saying, “Grow the fuck up,” much more civilly and eloquently than I did.
Sex is inherently evil!!!
Never forget that.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too serious.
And anyway - Cy. Weren’t you busy making casts of your penis…? Careful, it might sue.
Nope, i’ve never done that.
Anyway its a serious issue, even if the thread had a light hearted theme.
I suppose it can sometimes be a serious issue. You were the first person to bring up sexual harassment, though. I’d actually like to get back to the discussion about success rates for hitting on people by location if it is possible and if anyone so desires.
Faust, I replied to your post, by the way. It’s buried about twenty posts prior to this one, it begins with me quoting you.
Oh yeah.
I don’t very often hit on anyone, truth be told. I did seriously hit on my present girlfriend, but that was at work (at a previous job). But that was in another den of iniquity - another restaurant.
{This just in, Cyrene - I have recently learned that one of our bartenders has just done a porn. I’m not kidding. Evidently, it can be downloaded for five bucks, but I think I see enough of him at work.}
I guess I was confident. I don’t even think about that anymore, as I am very old. It’s a numbers game - you just kinda have to go for it.
Or maybe it wasn’t even a hit. I just told her not to bring her boyfriend to the company christmas party, as I was planning to jump her bones that night. We had never, up to that point, socialised. Is that a hit?
She did bring him, but I had breakfast with her the next morning. Done.
That’s true, it’s a gamble like anything else. I think that the only difference is that things like confidence and timing can greatly improve your odds. I very rarely take risks, so before I was married, I would only hit on someone if given the situation I felt I had at least a 3/4 chance of success.
Nice work.
That is most assuredly a hit, though. If you want to know the truth, I found that particular line very creative but also quite risky depending on who the boyfriend is.
I suppose, “Hit on,” is a very subjective term and that is where I was at odds with Cyrene. When I talk about hitting on girls at the store I am talking just going up and talking to them about something, trying to get their name and phone number and that kind of shit. I don’t think I have ever hit on anyone in my life implicitly or explicitly in a sexual way.
Ohhhh.
I guess that was a hit, then.
The BF was psycho, but she was worth the risk.
Everything seems to have worked out well considering the two of you are still together.
No, unless she ends up in each isle I go to. That would mean destiny.
Or that one of you is a stalker.
Laws are not created or designed to punish “deviations of the norm” in the case of PLENTY of equality laws/movements the POINT was that the norm was unfair/unjust and held one sex under its boot. Laws are often times implemented to address the “norm”
Its NORMAL for males to push sexual comments on females where its unwanted its routine that they FEEL harassed by those comments. Its not rocket-science.
Sexual harassment laws are to protect women from unwanted sexual harassment which is as the word combination suggests is harassment of a sexual nature.. Not to punish sexual deviancy, not to punish obscenity out of the norm, BUT TO PROTECT WOMEN from harassment originating from a reasonably sexual nature.
The whole point is males NORMALLY push desires on females, they’re going to normally be sexually harassing because they don’t precieve it that way due to psychological differences between men/women.
Its not immature for a woman to legally lash out against an unwanted sexual comment.
What’s immature is to see a complex issue in such a simplistic way.
no free citizen should have to “just suck it up” because its “normal” when we’re talking about comments like “you have a nice ass” or any other reasonably sexual comment.
The whole point of sexual harassment laws is to protect the other gender’s rights AGAINST each others common interests
I’ll wait for your next fourteen posts before I respond. You know, ten minutes from now.