Sexual harassment at TAM?!

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

We must not be on the same page. I indeed missed addressing your points, but I think I have made over 30 replies here, so it wasn't because I'm trying to hide.

The objective standard does *not* apply to the victim's perceptions. That's kinda why the victim's perceptions are labelled *subjectively* offensive by the supreme court. The RP criterion is the "objective" standard.

It's possible you are talking about battery (something that was an aside on page 1 here, so excuse me if we're miscommunicating) and I am talking about harassment. Beyond that, I don't know how else to clarify.

Here's an example (age harassment) where the victim's perceptions weren't enough to meet the objective standard, and so it wasn't harassment:

http://www.maricopa.edu/legal/dp/inbrief/ageharass.htm

So you had no idea anyone was talking about battery, after multiple posts pointing that out, some of them addressed to you.

I'm not buying your 'I'm so confused' act.

Either you have a link to case law saying it doesn't matter unless you touch someone on a specific body part (as you claimed) or you don't.

Either you have a citation for the publications that published the 'pubs' you wrote, or you don't.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by bookitty

So an "effective strategy" risks alienating, discomforting or otherwise bothering a large number of strangers in hopes that you might find one who will be willing to bed you. Your boner is that important. So why not just hire a prostitute? You get sex, no one get bothered. Win/win!

ETA: Might I suggest, based on your vast majority of shot-downs, that you simply explain to all and sundry that you MUST get laid. Give women the option of contributing a dollar towards a call girl instead of dealing with your advances. You'll have the cash in no time

Real men don't pay. It's the thrill of the hunt, the excitement of the chase then the attainment of victory that makes it worth while/mansplainer off

[tsig]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

So you had no idea anyone was talking about battery, after multiple posts pointing that out, some of them addressed to you.

I'm not buying your 'I'm so confused' act.

Either you have a link to case law saying it doesn't matter unless you touch someone on a specific body part (as you claimed) or you don't.

Either you have a citation for the publications that published the 'pubs' you wrote, or you don't.

Are we being 'played'?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

Who said that asexual behavior was expected from skeptics? I said that I (naively) expected welcoming and non-sexist behavior from skeptics. For me, that means any hookups should be made when there's a reasonable expectation of consent (say, after sharing some drinks and laughs and mutual flirtatious behavior). If I want to hook up with somebody, I know how to behave in a way that shows my interest and availability. If I'm a complete stranger to you, why would you assume that I'm a woman who doesn't want to waste time with the niceties? If you want to find a woman who is looking for a random hook-up, I can find you one. They generally give off pretty clear signals. (Note: Merely being in the room is not a signal of "I'm willing to **** the first guy who offers.")

And here is a thing, I know that I can not read those signals. There are reasons I was afraid to touch my now wife when we started seeing each other even though we were literally sleeping together.

The thing is that some of the people here are hearing one awkward and uncomfortable advance and seeing that claimed as the issue. The issue seems to not be individual advances but the number of them and that some people seem reluctant to take no for an answer.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So could someone then view being around homosexuals with any level of affection displayed as sexual harassment? It is behavior that makes some people decidedly uncomfortable after all.

That would be ambient sexual harassment potentially...

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

My only bias is choosing not to throw myself into that particular mix. If that's what's going on at TAM, I'm not going to participate. I don't go to swingers conventions or strip clubs or naturist camps or Jesus camps, because I don't want to hang out with those crowds. I'm not telling other people what they can or cannot do, but saying, "Oh, if that's what this is all about, I'll pass on the invite." If I want a quick hook-up, I can go to a club. If I want to hang out and share ideas with like-minded people, I'll hang out with my friends.

What exactly is the draw of TAM supposed to be, anyway?

According to JREF,

Quote:

The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM) is an annual celebration of science, skepticism and critical thinking. People from all over the world come TAM each year to share learning, laughs and the skeptical perspective with their fellow skeptics and a host of distinguished guest speakers and panelists.

Hmmm, nothing in there about free-love. Well, I guess they somehow left out "And like totally bone strangers even if you can't get any at home."

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

That would be ambient sexual harassment potentially...

But, of course, hitting on every woman until you find one that's drunk enough isn't anything like that.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

have I spent most of our acquaintance to that point talking about how I don't like to be sexually objectified and how I think there is a problem with sexism in the community we belong to?

So you don't like sex and don't want to have it. Or at the very least never want to be viewed as attractive. Because in that case you will be being sexually objectified.

Here is the thing, in the right context most people like being sexually objectified and feeling attractive and alluring. You may or may not be one of them, but there is nothing wrong with finding someone sexually attractive and acting on it.

This does not preclude treating them as a person, or leaving them alone when they ask.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Awkward come ons can work. And I am convinced that a very effective strategy to get people to do to bed with you is ask a lot of them. You will get shot down a vast majority of the time, but the game of numbers is in your favor that you will find someone who will think you are good enough for tonight.

Now there has been clear bias against semi anonymous or short term sex. In that regard some of the posters here are coming across as trying to tell other people what they should do.

If what you're doing involves another person, of course they have a say in whether or not they participate.

To me this makes about as much sense as backhandedly-smacking each of your sex partners repeatedly across the face in the middle of a sex act in order to find out which ones like the "rough stuff". Hey, do it to enough women and you're bound to find one eventually who doesn't call the cops.

By all means, continue to play your "numbers game" and enjoy the declining female participation at TAMs. Then you can be "right" and lonely all at the same time.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

And once again you utterly misstate the legal reality.

The victim *does* get to make that decision, not the transgressor, as you would like to pretend.

The harasser, the batterer, and even the date rapist can all imagine that they get to be the sole arbiter of when too far is too far... and that pretense can come back to bite them in the rear on occasion.

So can we treat a gay couple kissing as harassment rather like a flasher? They are forcing their sexual act to be viewed by strangers who do not consent after all.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So can we treat a gay couple kissing as harassment rather like a flasher? They are forcing their sexual act to be viewed by strangers who do not consent after all.

No! Obviously Crime is talking about battery and not harassment (or perhaps it's not so obvious).

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by bookitty

But, of course, hitting on every woman until you find one that's drunk enough isn't anything like that.

The dings have been funny so far, but this one simply does not follow.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

As a tenured prof of management, I'll defer to your experience, despite the fairly clear language in the supreme court's decision.

A company policy more strict than the legal standard seems fine by me, although I don't really like zero tolerance logic.

I would expect company policy more strict than required, we live in a CYA world.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by bookitty

According to JREF,


Hmmm, nothing in there about free-love. Well, I guess they somehow left out "And like totally bone strangers even if you can't get any at home."

"Travel the world, meet new and interesting people and bang them."

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by bookitty

So an "effective strategy" risks alienating, discomforting or otherwise bothering a large number of strangers in hopes that you might find one who will be willing to bed you. Your boner is that important. So why not just hire a prostitute? You get sex, no one get bothered. Win/win!

ETA: Might I suggest, based on your vast majority of shot-downs, that you simply explain to all and sundry that you MUST get laid. Give women the option of contributing a dollar towards a call girl instead of dealing with your advances. You'll have the cash in no time

Making stuff up again. I have never to my knowledge hit on anyone, and am remarkably shy and reticent to do so. I understand that this is to my detriment and has hurt my ability to meet women.

But you clearly have no idea that someone would defend behavior that they consider tacky and inappropriate, so I guess that is to be expected. You clearly would never defend people doing something you did not like, because you felt they had some right to do that.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

If what you're doing involves another person, of course they have a say in whether or not they participate.

To me this makes about as much sense as backhandedly-smacking each of your sex partners repeatedly across the face in the middle of a sex act in order to find out which ones like the "rough stuff". Hey, do it to enough women and you're bound to find one eventually who doesn't call the cops.

By all means, continue to play your "numbers game" and enjoy the declining female participation at TAMs. Then you can be "right" and lonely all at the same time.

Ah someone else who insists on making up personal attacks. See maybe this is the behavior that is driving people away.

[Checkmite]

We've managed to use "you" as a nonspecific second-person designator for this whole thread without anyone claiming it as a personal attack; well until now.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by bookitty

If you can't, it isn't the fault of the women. Or George "please don't drag me into this" Clooney's.

I lol'd.

Catching up... Man, I leave for one night and everything goes to hell... BRB.

[RemieV]

8 pages and I suggest that all attractive people who don't want to doink attend TAM in burkas.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

What exactly is the draw of TAM supposed to be, anyway?

Originally Posted by bookitty

Hmmm, nothing in there about free-love. Well, I guess they somehow left out "And like totally bone strangers even if you can't get any at home."

Nothing in there about food either. Is it okay if I have a meal or two?

There are 7 billion people in the world. Don't you think that there are a few people out there, men and women, who either want to hook-up or are amenable to it? Perhaps a dozen or so?

I didn't read every post in the thread so perhaps I'm missing something, whats the problem with men and women hooking up at TAM?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I didn't read every post in the thread so perhaps I'm missing something, whats the problem with men and women hooking up at TAM?

You're missing a lot of important stuff. There's nothing wrong with "hooking up" at TAM.

The problem is that on more than one occasion, certain peoples' chosen methods of initiating a hook-up were offensive or inconsiderate, which makes some women uncomfortable; yet those who have admitted so have been marginalized, or their opinions devalued, in response, and that response seems to have put many females off of attending TAMs. Certain folks at the JREF have noticed the drop in female conference registrations this year, but have decided that the non-registering women were "scared off" by the initial reports of bad experiences rather than put off by the acidic response to them, and thus have blamed the initial reporters for the falling female attendance.

[tyr_13]

I really hate the elevator thing being used the way it is.

Yes, a lot of people dismissed and belittled positions unfairly. Many of us didn't agree with that and made it known. A lot of people tried to turn aspects of the story into being much more than they were. Many of us disagreed with that and made it known. Watson said and did a lot of things that were worthy of valid criticism, and leveling those criticisms were not support for dismissing the problem of sexual harassment or even just annoyance.

But we're back to straw manning the arguments and even motivations of those on the 'other side' or even those just discussing things. Hyperbole about some men only caring about getting laid being their motivation, other men 'white knighting', and women being just superficial serial complainers.

Short version: A pox on both your houses. If I had the money I'd still go to TAM and make it better by calling out boorish behavior and the denigration of anyone's (male/female/other) sexuality.

[Sun Countess]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I didn't read every post in the thread so perhaps I'm missing something, whats the problem with men and women hooking up at TAM?

Perhaps you're missing something.

Unless you wanted to drive the point home that any time a woman mentions that she feels uncomfortable when propositioned for sex by a complete stranger, the message she's really sending is that she wants to turn all men into asexual robots and rid the entire world completely of any and all sexual activity, then congratulations! Sadly, I have no ribbons left to award for that particular event in the strawman olympics. Too late to the thread, I'm afraid....

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

They advertise based on it.

"what happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas". So the city itself promotes this sort of behavior.

I interpreted that as meaning that you could blow the vacation fund on 34R or go to a titty bar without your wife finding out, not that the place was crawling with chicks looking to get nailed. How come there are so many professional companions there if this is the case?
Enzyte Bob used to advertise based on making my schlong bigger too, that turned out not to be reality based, so I'm unconvinced

Originally Posted by RemieV

8 pages and I suggest that all attractive people who don't want to doink attend TAM in burkas.

The fuglies can do what they like though?

Originally Posted by RandFan

I didn't read every post in the thread so perhaps I'm missing something, whats the problem with men and women hooking up at TAM?

I did, no-one has a problem with people hooking up. Apparently some women would rather not go to an event where they will be hit on by random attendees without any preamble. Odd isn't it?

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

I interpreted that as meaning that you could blow the vacation fund on 34R or go to a titty bar without your wife finding out, not that the place was crawling with chicks looking to get nailed. How come there are so many professional companions there if this is the case?



The fuglies can do what they like though?



I did, no-one has a problem with people hooking up. Apparently some women would rather not go to an event where they will be hit on by random attendees without any preamble. Odd isn't it?

GT, I made the comment because people were saying that this is an attractive people only issue. Tis a joke.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by RemieV

GT, I made the comment because people were saying that this is an attractive people only issue. Tis a joke.

Ah, mea culpa.

[TsarBomba]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Awkward come ons can work. And I am convinced that a very effective strategy to get people to do to bed with you is ask a lot of them. You will get shot down a vast majority of the time, but the game of numbers is in your favor that you will find someone who will think you are good enough for tonight.

Now there has been clear bias against semi anonymous or short term sex. In that regard some of the posters here are coming across as trying to tell other people what they should do.

So your strategy for sexual conquest is to insult a great number of women, have them feel objectified and belittled, most likely ruining their day, if not their week, all so that you can sow your oats 1 in 100 times?

That's a lot of collateral damage, bucko. Men that behave like that make many women think that all of us are pigs.

[epepke]

There's good news. Watson plans not to go to TAM this year: http://skepchick.org/2012/06/why-i-w...tam-this-year/

Maybe attendance by women will go up, as women will not have to face at least one source of having their opinions misrepresented and pilloried by a self-defined spokeswoman for the entire female sex.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by tsig

Except it was:

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals found enough similarity between the Act and Title VII to hold that harassment based on age might constitute unlawful discrimination in the workplace.

It seems likely that the Sixth Circuit's rationale in Crawford will guide courts in other jurisdictions as they address claims of age harassment. In the meantime, employers will no doubt encourage supervisors to be sensitive to employees' age-related comments that could create a discriminatorily hostile environment.


You've been told this several times. Harassment is in the eyes of the victim.

But, Crawford lost the case! Although the behaviors offended her (the victim), they were not found to be objectively offensive to an RP. That reality seems to be the exact opposite of what you're claiming here.

[TsarBomba]

What this blogger said: http://www.skepticalabyss.com/?p=19

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by TsarBomba

What this blogger said: http://www.skepticalabyss.com/?p=19

That's the second time you referneced this blog. The domain was registered soon after this debate started, and contains only articles slagging off RW, do you know who the blogger is?

[TsarBomba]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

But, Crawford lost the case! Although the behaviors offended her (the victim), they were not found to be objectively offensive to an RP. That reality seems to be the exact opposite of what you're claiming here.

Who cares about employment law. A substantial part of my practice is in employment law, and in my opinion there is little, if anything, that can be learned from review of case authority or statues that would apply to TAM (except for harassment of JREF employees or pseudo-employees).

Employers have duties of care imposed by labor law. Conference organizers do not have the same duty for their attendees (although the blogger I cited in my last post has some interesting theories about that in her earlier posts--they are well worth reading).

You might as well be arguing about ecclesiastical politics on the Planet Neptune. It is just as relevent.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

Unless you wanted to drive the point home that any time a woman mentions that she feels uncomfortable when propositioned for sex by a complete stranger Unless you wanted to drive the point home that any time a woman mentions that she feels uncomfortable when propositioned for sex by a complete stranger, the message she's really sending is that she wants to turn all men into asexual robots and rid the entire world completely of any and all sexual activity, then congratulations! Sadly, I have no ribbons left to award for that particular event in the strawman olympics. Too late to the thread, I'm afraid....

Glad to know it was world class. But to be fair I admitted up front I didn't understand the problem. That was simply my impression.

So, if I understand you, strangers shouldn't hook up at TAM?

[Disraeli Ears]

Originally Posted by TsarBomba

What this blogger said: http://www.skepticalabyss.com/?p=19

I don't know who she is, but I like the cut of her jib.
But I wouldn't put much stock in what Tsarbomba has said: 20 minutes ago he popped an Ambien and washed it down with two beers. I'm laying in bed with him so I have first-hand evidence.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

I did, no-one has a problem with people hooking up. Apparently some women would rather not go to an event where they will be hit on by random attendees without any preamble. Odd isn't it?

Thanks. That's a bit more helpful than "I feel uncomfortable being propositioned by strangers".

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by TsarBomba

Who cares about employment law. A substantial part of my practice is in employment law, and in my opinion there is little, if anything, that can be learned from review of case authority or statues that would apply to TAM (except for harassment of JREF employees or pseudo-employees).

Employers have duties of care imposed by labor law. Conference organizers do not have the same duty for their attendees (although the blogger I cited in my last post has some interesting theories about that in her earlier posts--they are well worth reading).

You might as well be arguing about ecclesiastical politics on the Planet Neptune. It is just as relevent.

How would you then define harassment at a conference event?

[Legend]

I wonder how completely scarred Elevator Guy is now. It was probably his first encounter with a female. Imagine his prep-talk before it all took off; "Just remember what GQ said, 'What's the worst thing that could happen?'"

[Cain]

I remember giving a presentation in an anthropology class in college. Yes, I was informative and charming. Afterward, while packing my things, my eyes crawled up and I see this girl standing over me. Everybody else in class had left. She said she really enjoyed my presentation. I lied and said her's was also great. Then she asked where I was going next. Creepy ******* bitch.

This had always been a fond memory, but now I have to rethink everything. I wonder if she had any plans on sexually assaulting me right there. Was that classroom, off at the far end of the hall, behind pretty solid doors, a "safe space"??

[truethat]

I saw Sun Countess's post in the nominated thread so I'm replying to that. I found the whole post like a walking blind spot. The woman did not share how she felt or her reaction. She didn't talk about her feelings, she blamed the guy for not being able to predict her feelings and accused men of all sorts of things.

You know just like your post just did.

As a woman I do not expect men to walk around on eggshells around me. I wear big girl panties and can handle BEING UNCOMFORTABLE. As someone who has deal with a lot of real issues in my life it comes across as pathetic and self victimizing when women want men to "listen to how they feel" but spend the entire opportunity to share that, berating them for not knowing it and basically NOT TELLING THEM. Then still getting mad because they don't know.

I'm sick of seeing women bitch and moan about men on this site, with no sense of human understanding or desire to build relationships that acknowledge the issues that both sides of the gender issue face not to mention the plethora of other issues faced by non binary gendered. For example men are typically EXPECTED to make the first move. And when men have said such comments to me in my life I have not fallen down in a collapse of desperation but simply side stepped it or let it be known I was not interested. Example "you're very kind but I'm married." or "you're very kind but I'm not interested in dating at TAM"

It is time that women grow up, speak what they mean and stop using insults and misandry with the justification that they are just "speaking their mind."


I saw a very young bar tender put off man who asked her for her phone number at work a few weeks ago. She said "Oh thanks but I can't do that."

Period the end. To me, I have to say it comes across as some women wishing they were victimized or something. If you were really ever victimized sexually I doubt very much you'd be making accusations that THIS kind of thing is sexual harassment.

[Sun Countess]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Glad to know it was world class. But to be fair I admitted up front I didn't understand the problem. That was simply my impression.

So, if I understand you, strangers shouldn't hook up at TAM?

I honestly don't know how you'd get that impression if you'd read any of my posts in this thread. I have no problem with people hooking up, even people who are just meeting for the first time. I do have a problem with men that I've never met asking me if I'd like to give them a blowjob.

And yes, I fully get that it's my problem. I wear big girl panties, too, and I know how to deal with creepy men. I've had to do my fair share of it. As I've gotten older and wiser, I've learned that I can steer clear of places where that type of behavior is apparently acceptable.

Just be aware that a lot of other women feel the same way that I do - that it's just plain icky to be sexually propositioned by a random stranger who just happens to be standing next to you - especially if you were expecting to enjoy an evening of skepticism and intellectual camaraderie. And that if guys in this community say they would like more women to come to certain events, and continue to act in ways that make a large segment of women feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, and then blame the women for feeling uncomfortable and accuse them of hating men and hating sex, that they shouldn't be surprised if fewer women attend those events.

Not because we hate sex. Not because we don't think that random hook-ups between mutually-attracted people should be forbidden. But because sometimes there are better ways to spend your time and money than being surrounded by a handful of men who think it's totally okay to grope, leer at, or proposition women they've never met, and a larger roomful of people who tell you to "get over it" when you say one of the handful made you uncomfortable.