Just what are these sexual harassers doing?

[Bonzi]

Just behaving like men.
Then, women who want to be "empowered" cry because they are too weak to tell a guy to get lost when they start doing stuff like that... it's ridiculous

Just behaving like men, are you serious? Is this what the men in your world behave like? Disgusting.

Men (or women) who sexually harrass others are being anti-social and lacking in self control.

"Antisocial personality disorder is defined by a pervasive and persistent disregard for morals, social norms, and the rights and feelings of others. ... Those with antisocial personality disorder are often impulsive and reckless, failing to consider or disregarding the consequences of their actions"

Men who sexually harrass are not 'just being men.' And it is usually coming from a need to express their power or superiority over women, probably because they feel inferior or have some kind of inferiority complex--the same reasons bullies bully--because they actually have an inferiority complex.

Well if women are so strong, unless they have a gun to their head, tell those people to get lost. It's not hard. I have done it all my life and have never been molested or harassed. Men have TRIED, and I only ALMOST got fired once for it....

It is hard if it means losing your job, destroying your career, etc. Men put up with a lot too to protect their job and career. People do it. Can't understand how a woman cannot understand this situation.

Because I'm a strong woman that knows you can stave off men and keep your career in tact. Plus, no ONE man can ruin your career. If you think so, you may as well go back to being a housewife in the 50's.

I think in the environment of Hollywood, one man can cause a woman to ruin her career. At the very least it can cause someone to lose a very much needed job. I don't get your attitude. Are you unable to emphathize? It's never even happened to me and I understand. But then I have a career, so I can understand how it can be undermined by one person in a position of power. And I have always needed to support myself, so I can understand how devastating it can be to lose your job.

I'm just saying don't say you equal to men then cry victim. I'd rather be broke then work for a sxual harasser

 

[usmbguest5318]

Just behaving like men.
Then, women who want to be "empowered" cry because they are too weak to tell a guy to get lost when they start doing stuff like that... it's ridiculous

cry because they are too weak to tell a guy to get lost when they start doing stuff like that... it's ridiculous

That is every bit as pathetic as is the harassers' abusive behavior, though unlike sexual harassment/abuse, being pathetic is not criminal, thus pity is about all one can duly have regarding it and people who are but so.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I wonder just what "sexual harassment" truly is. Seems the term has been politically corrected to mean just about anything the media wants it to be.

A fun slap on the tush of 60 years ago is not a horrid assault upon a female's derriere.

You wouldn't any longer wonder that were you to just use the tools at your disposal to find out what sexual harassment truly is.

• What is Sexual Harassment? | Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center
  
• sexual harassment
  
• What is Sexual Harassment

Making that minor effort, you'd thus come to know that what the media think it is or is not has nothing to do with what in fact it is and is not.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Just behaving like men.
Then, women who want to be "empowered" cry because they are too weak to tell a guy to get lost when they start doing stuff like that... it's ridiculous

Just behaving like men, are you serious? Is this what the men in your world behave like? Disgusting.

Men (or women) who sexually harrass others are being anti-social and lacking in self control.

"Antisocial personality disorder is defined by a pervasive and persistent disregard for morals, social norms, and the rights and feelings of others. ... Those with antisocial personality disorder are often impulsive and reckless, failing to consider or disregarding the consequences of their actions"

Men who sexually harrass are not 'just being men.' And it is usually coming from a need to express their power or superiority over women, probably because they feel inferior or have some kind of inferiority complex--the same reasons bullies bully--because they actually have an inferiority complex.

Well if women are so strong, unless they have a gun to their head, tell those people to get lost. It's not hard. I have done it all my life and have never been molested or harassed. Men have TRIED, and I only ALMOST got fired once for it....

if women are so strong, unless they have a gun to their head, tell those people to get lost.

While I agree with that sentiment, the fact remains that any individual's weakness in that regard does not give another individual the "nihil obstat" to sexually harass or abuse them.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Hmmm interesting topic of discussion. I would say it's a combination of all your suggestions, plus more. I think perhaps the only common thread between all of the (rightly and wrongly) accused might be ego and over-confidence. Though I question that it's "coming out now" as some kind of revelation of sexual impropriety; after all how many husbands are caught fucking their secretaries? I believe such an idea is so common place that it's quasi-accepted, not so much that the wifes/girlfriends accept it, but society as a whole "recognizes" that it is very common. I think this too is very common, but just never gained traction until the influx of the "modern woman" revolution theme brought in by third wave feminism (to which I'd argue they attack this common acceptance as a matter of course.) It has to be said that to be successful one needs confidence, and most women are almost biologically attracted to confidence; those who have not swallowed the third wave "independence and strength arguments" anyway. So honestly, I would say it's /bound/ to happen often - not specifically that these men are sexual deviants, but rather that women have been attracted to them so often their egos begin to believe that every woman would appreciate sleeping with them. So I would argue it is not so much that the men think they are doing wrong and sexually assaulting girls "because they can get away with it," so much as they don't believe any woman would be offended by their advances.

To example, myself, as a narc, in my single days considered that anyone would be in a way flattered were I to make a move on them - and to be fair, being a woman that was generally true and most were very receptive to my advances, similar to these powerful/rich men.

While I generally strayed away from playing my games in corporate fields because I'm rather dedicated to my "work", I did indeed "sexually assault" (by modern definitions) some of my bosses - much to their delight, and I will also admit that I was rewarded once or twice career wise; though that was never actually my goal. Still I cannot say that such quid pro quo isn't the goal of these other folks or anything, I think it is perhaps "too common" in abuse of power type situations to discount that being the case; even if I've never had any boss hit on me unless I initiated, which was rare as it was a very rare type of man that could take me out of "business mode" and put me on those particular paths - perhaps there too my success rate was buffered in that I have a thing for authoritative dominant men who many women may find 'offensive,' even back in my day, and more so today (aka assholes)... That brings up a couple points though...

First, perhaps I am counter to your latter assertion regarding propriety. Your opinion of what's "proper" is not necessarily the same for others. While I do consider such things improper for a corporate environment, there are many, many cases where the "look good" rules of behavior are broken in the business world - it's all about knowing who you can trust. (Trust is an oft overlooked business trait...) My above is an example to another point as well; were it the other way around he'd likely be fired had he been caught, but as I made the move he'd be "forgiven" if we'd been caught. A related(ish) example would be, many corporate bosses censor their swear words in front of the secretary, and more so in front of the public eye, but such things fall away "with the other guys" because the hard truth is that if you're sharking a high profit language is so far down the list of shit that matters that it's not even really on the list.

Second, I think time needs to be recognized in the context of such a discussion. As another poster pointed out, things have changed (third wave feminism and the "coddled" culture) In my day, "David Cop-A-Feel" was a very common and hilarious joke in many circles, as were many, many other things that would be considered "rape," "sexual assault," or "sexual harassment" these days. There is a question of "intent" in my mind when one defines these things; while it's easy to say "/any/ unwanted touching" is "assault" I personally do not believe that is the case. Sexual assault for example is a violence, it is "assault" not a joking pat on the ass in front of ones wife that is never intended to go anywhere. (Yes, I do understand that some chicks find it offensive and crass, however, I hesitate to label it "assault" because there is no "violence" in it. ) It's like when our roommate inserts sexual innuendo, George Takie's "Ohhhh myyy," for example, is one of his favorites; it is merely a joke about a common human experience (sex) there is not an implication that he wants to have sex with my husband or I. Similarly if I tell my friend to blow me, I'm clearly not asking them to perform oral sex (I'm a woman for one) however there is a sexual implication involved in such a statement. Or when you make the jack off motion when someone's yapping at you on the phone.

Sex being a common human experience, I think jokes and many of the faux "sexual motions" that go with them cannot be stuffed under an automatic label of "sexual assault" or "sexual harassment" - to example President Trump saying "they'll let you grab em by the pussy" is not an indication that he's sexually assaulted anyone, it's not an indication that he would do so, it's merely an expression, a turn of phrase, that most men, and especially confident/powerful/rich/famous/sexy men all well understand. To a third wave feminist, to someone who's never experienced women fawning at their feet, it is a foreign idea that seems "off" or "wrong" because /they/ could never get away with such a thing. However, the fact he is 100% correct, there are many many women who would love to have a rich famous guy grab em by the pussy, and probably a number who would "let" them do it - as we see with all these Hollywood folks. And in fact, I think were you to flip the sexes in these present (right and wrong) cases, you'll find a lot more "acceptance" of what is supposedly sexual assault, harassment, etc. Here again modern feminism exploits the innate natural biological tendency for women to be protected from harm to push an idea; using that "weakness" is technically counter to their entire argument, but they'll use any tool in the shed to fund their agenda.

Thanks for putting thought into your reply. Notwithstanding some of what you'll read below, I do appreciate your doing so. It makes for richer conversation and it provides an indication that the writer isn't a "knee-jerk" flake, nut-job, or flat out "troll." I know that last bit isn't the greatest of accolades, but in this venue, such boors are so common that one's merely not being among them is itself remarkable.

I think perhaps the only common thread between all of the (rightly and wrongly) accused might be ego and over-confidence.

How do you see the two as different in this context or in that of your essay? They strike me as the same thing in those regards.

society as a whole "recognizes" that it is very common.

Be that as it may, acknowledging the commonality of a thing, in this case a behavior, and acquiescing to its existence and, in turn, discounting it(or placing a premium on it) is but a form of "buying" an appeal to popularity. Ethical mores, thus the truths derived from them, are not a function of what is popular, but rather of what is, in the abstract, right or wrong, equitable or unequitable.

theme brought in by third wave feminism (to which I'd argue they attack this common acceptance as a matter of course.)

As well they should on purely rational grounds. Forbearance of sexual harassment/abuse on the basis that "it happens often" is irrational (see immediately preceding comment) and reprehensible.

It has to be said that to be successful one needs confidence, and most women are almost biologically attracted to confidence;

Self-confidence is an intoxicating trait; however, like all character traits, having too much of it is to be depraved.

I would say it's /bound/ to happen often - not specifically that these men are sexual deviants, but rather that women have been attracted to them so often their egos begin to believe that every woman would appreciate sleeping with them. So I would argue it is not so much that the men think they are doing wrong and sexually assaulting girls "because they can get away with it," so much as they don't believe any woman would be offended by their advances

What? That smacks of a strange mix of "myriad 'Mata Haris' made me do it" and the "old Hollywood" image of women swooning uncontrollably in response to a mere kiss or other minor bit of attention paid to them by a man, most especially a man of means. No paucity of "p-words" come to mind when pondering that notion: provincial, paternalistic, and procrustean being first among them. Surely that isn't what you mean?

To example, myself, as a narc, in my single days considered that anyone would be in a way flattered were I to make a move on them - and to be fair, being a woman that was generally true and most were very receptive to my advances

Well, if they were genuinely receptive, or were they going along with the program, so to speak? I don't know, but I have come by enough men who are so pathetic that they, not the women unfortunate enough to bear them a second glance, will swoon at the most meager bit of attention paid to them by any woman -- even "four baggers" -- and, in turn, overestimate the significance of that attention.

What does being a "narc" have to do with it? I must ask because among the men and women I know, myself included, being good looking, fit and reasonably personable and interesting are the things inspired others to be flattered (if indeed they were -- for the most part almost everyone in my social circles since about high school has had those qualities ) to be the objects of our attentions. Discovering what we do for a living isn't generally something we disclose in more than vague terms unless/until the relationship moves to more than the "hook up" level; thus it really has little to do with the initial or even early-stage attraction or flattery.

I did indeed "sexually assault" (by modern definitions) some of my bosses - much to their delight

What? Assault is by definition unwanted. Assaults of all sorts didn't just in the 21st century come to be undesired moves upon a person, regardless of the explicit language in any given section of Code. What, in any temporal frame, is delightful about an unwanted move?

 

[Bonzi]

Just behaving like men.
Then, women who want to be "empowered" cry because they are too weak to tell a guy to get lost when they start doing stuff like that... it's ridiculous

Just behaving like men, are you serious? Is this what the men in your world behave like? Disgusting.

Men (or women) who sexually harrass others are being anti-social and lacking in self control.

"Antisocial personality disorder is defined by a pervasive and persistent disregard for morals, social norms, and the rights and feelings of others. ... Those with antisocial personality disorder are often impulsive and reckless, failing to consider or disregarding the consequences of their actions"

Men who sexually harrass are not 'just being men.' And it is usually coming from a need to express their power or superiority over women, probably because they feel inferior or have some kind of inferiority complex--the same reasons bullies bully--because they actually have an inferiority complex.

Well if women are so strong, unless they have a gun to their head, tell those people to get lost. It's not hard. I have done it all my life and have never been molested or harassed. Men have TRIED, and I only ALMOST got fired once for it....

if women are so strong, unless they have a gun to their head, tell those people to get lost.

While I agree with that sentiment, the fact remains that any individual's weakness in that regard does not give another individual the "nihil obstat" to sexually harass or abuse them.

I bet you dollars to donuts those women were flirty, and, they knew the score. No excuse. I mean, the guy is scum, no doubt, but don't expect people to be mind readers. If you don't like how they are acting tell them. Don't be a pussy then tattle later like a cry baby

 

[koshergrl]

Just behaving like men.
Then, women who want to be "empowered" cry because they are too weak to tell a guy to get lost when they start doing stuff like that... it's ridiculous

Just behaving like men, are you serious? Is this what the men in your world behave like? Disgusting.

Men (or women) who sexually harrass others are being anti-social and lacking in self control.

"Antisocial personality disorder is defined by a pervasive and persistent disregard for morals, social norms, and the rights and feelings of others. ... Those with antisocial personality disorder are often impulsive and reckless, failing to consider or disregarding the consequences of their actions"

Men who sexually harrass are not 'just being men.' And it is usually coming from a need to express their power or superiority over women, probably because they feel inferior or have some kind of inferiority complex--the same reasons bullies bully--because they actually have an inferiority complex.

They're encouraged in their behavior by the attitude that all sexual depravity is AOK, and their belief, shared by all progressive, that all women should always have sex with whomever demands it. Isn't that why we legalized abortion? So people like Weinstein and his cronies could screw with impunity and never have to deal with the fallout?

A progressive world. It's lovely, isn't it?

 

[ChrisL]

If I ever came across some guy masturbating into a plant, I would think he was absolutely out of his mind or high on drugs or drunk or something. I can't even imagine the type of disturbed mindset it would take to do this type of thing (if it's true).

I don't doubt for a moment that this guy at least sexually harassed some women/actresses/whomever, but I also am aware that a lot of others will probably make false claims with their own motives for doing so (money, fame, just to get their names out there, whatever). Just remember, they are actresses.

No, I don't blame the women, whether they are "weak" or not. That is not an excuse. Do you beat up on a mentally challenged person because they don't know to fight back? No you do not because that is not how a civilized person would behave. It makes me pretty disgusted that a person like this would be so successful and famous and "respected" enough that one actress, during a speech, actually referred to him as "God." Perhaps she was just being sarcastic? Not sure.

 

[JoeMoma]

If I ever came across some guy masturbating into a plant, I would think he was absolutely out of his mind or high on drugs or drunk or something. I can't even imagine the type of disturbed mindset it would take to do this type of thing (if it's true).

I don't doubt for a moment that this guy at least sexually harassed some women/actresses/whomever, but I also am aware that a lot of others will probably make false claims with their own motives for doing so (money, fame, just to get their names out there, whatever). Just remember, they are actresses.

No, I don't blame the women, whether they are "weak" or not. That is not an excuse. Do you beat up on a mentally challenged person because they don't know to fight back? No you do not because that is not how a civilized person would behave. It makes me pretty disgusted that a person like this would be so successful and famous and "respected" enough that one actress, during a speech, actually referred to him as "God." Perhaps she was just being sarcastic? Not sure.

Actresses = Drama Queens

 

[JoeMoma]

If I ever came across some guy masturbating into a plant, I would think he was absolutely out of his mind or high on drugs or drunk or something. I can't even imagine the type of disturbed mindset it would take to do this type of thing (if it's true).

I don't doubt for a moment that this guy at least sexually harassed some women/actresses/whomever, but I also am aware that a lot of others will probably make false claims with their own motives for doing so (money, fame, just to get their names out there, whatever). Just remember, they are actresses.

No, I don't blame the women, whether they are "weak" or not. That is not an excuse. Do you beat up on a mentally challenged person because they don't know to fight back? No you do not because that is not how a civilized person would behave. It makes me pretty disgusted that a person like this would be so successful and famous and "respected" enough that one actress, during a speech, actually referred to him as "God." Perhaps she was just being sarcastic? Not sure.

Guys use plants to mastubate into and women use plants to masterbate.....weird but true.

 

[ChrisL]

If I ever came across some guy masturbating into a plant, I would think he was absolutely out of his mind or high on drugs or drunk or something. I can't even imagine the type of disturbed mindset it would take to do this type of thing (if it's true).

I don't doubt for a moment that this guy at least sexually harassed some women/actresses/whomever, but I also am aware that a lot of others will probably make false claims with their own motives for doing so (money, fame, just to get their names out there, whatever). Just remember, they are actresses.

No, I don't blame the women, whether they are "weak" or not. That is not an excuse. Do you beat up on a mentally challenged person because they don't know to fight back? No you do not because that is not how a civilized person would behave. It makes me pretty disgusted that a person like this would be so successful and famous and "respected" enough that one actress, during a speech, actually referred to him as "God." Perhaps she was just being sarcastic? Not sure.

Guys use plants to mastubate into and women use plants to masterbate.....weird but true.

I don't know where you are from, but I have never seen anyone do that before.

 

[JoeMoma]

If I ever came across some guy masturbating into a plant, I would think he was absolutely out of his mind or high on drugs or drunk or something. I can't even imagine the type of disturbed mindset it would take to do this type of thing (if it's true).

I don't doubt for a moment that this guy at least sexually harassed some women/actresses/whomever, but I also am aware that a lot of others will probably make false claims with their own motives for doing so (money, fame, just to get their names out there, whatever). Just remember, they are actresses.

No, I don't blame the women, whether they are "weak" or not. That is not an excuse. Do you beat up on a mentally challenged person because they don't know to fight back? No you do not because that is not how a civilized person would behave. It makes me pretty disgusted that a person like this would be so successful and famous and "respected" enough that one actress, during a speech, actually referred to him as "God." Perhaps she was just being sarcastic? Not sure.

Guys use plants to mastubate into and women use plants to masterbate.....weird but true.

I don't know where you are from, but I have never seen anyone do that before.

Does an apple pie count as a plant?

 

[ChrisL]

If I ever came across some guy masturbating into a plant, I would think he was absolutely out of his mind or high on drugs or drunk or something. I can't even imagine the type of disturbed mindset it would take to do this type of thing (if it's true).

I don't doubt for a moment that this guy at least sexually harassed some women/actresses/whomever, but I also am aware that a lot of others will probably make false claims with their own motives for doing so (money, fame, just to get their names out there, whatever). Just remember, they are actresses.

No, I don't blame the women, whether they are "weak" or not. That is not an excuse. Do you beat up on a mentally challenged person because they don't know to fight back? No you do not because that is not how a civilized person would behave. It makes me pretty disgusted that a person like this would be so successful and famous and "respected" enough that one actress, during a speech, actually referred to him as "God." Perhaps she was just being sarcastic? Not sure.

Guys use plants to mastubate into and women use plants to masterbate.....weird but true.

I don't know where you are from, but I have never seen anyone do that before.

Does an apple pie count as a plant?

Probably not. The apple tree would be though.

 

[miketx]

I know Weinstein jerked off into a potted plant in front of a woman. Which is actually pretty awesome on his part.

That's probably why his son is a blooming idiot.

 

[JoeMoma]

If I ever came across some guy masturbating into a plant, I would think he was absolutely out of his mind or high on drugs or drunk or something. I can't even imagine the type of disturbed mindset it would take to do this type of thing (if it's true).

I don't doubt for a moment that this guy at least sexually harassed some women/actresses/whomever, but I also am aware that a lot of others will probably make false claims with their own motives for doing so (money, fame, just to get their names out there, whatever). Just remember, they are actresses.

No, I don't blame the women, whether they are "weak" or not. That is not an excuse. Do you beat up on a mentally challenged person because they don't know to fight back? No you do not because that is not how a civilized person would behave. It makes me pretty disgusted that a person like this would be so successful and famous and "respected" enough that one actress, during a speech, actually referred to him as "God." Perhaps she was just being sarcastic? Not sure.

Guys use plants to mastubate into and women use plants to masterbate.....weird but true.

I don't know where you are from, but I have never seen anyone do that before.

Does an apple pie count as a plant?

Probably not. The apple tree would be though.

I used to like apple pie!

 

[Esmeralda]

Just behaving like men.
Then, women who want to be "empowered" cry because they are too weak to tell a guy to get lost when they start doing stuff like that... it's ridiculous

Just behaving like men, are you serious? Is this what the men in your world behave like? Disgusting.

Men (or women) who sexually harrass others are being anti-social and lacking in self control.

"Antisocial personality disorder is defined by a pervasive and persistent disregard for morals, social norms, and the rights and feelings of others. ... Those with antisocial personality disorder are often impulsive and reckless, failing to consider or disregarding the consequences of their actions"

Men who sexually harrass are not 'just being men.' And it is usually coming from a need to express their power or superiority over women, probably because they feel inferior or have some kind of inferiority complex--the same reasons bullies bully--because they actually have an inferiority complex.

They're encouraged in their behavior by the attitude that all sexual depravity is AOK, and their belief, shared by all progressive, that all women should always have sex with whomever demands it. Isn't that why we legalized abortion? So people like Weinstein and his cronies could screw with impunity and never have to deal with the fallout?

A progressive world. It's lovely, isn't it?

No.That is completely incorrect.

The behavior we now call 'sexual harrassment' has gone on forever: it is not something new. However, in the past, women were less likely to say anything or report it because 1) the woman would be blamed for it (as some are doing now) and 2) it was not considered a particularly 'bad' thing to do, but, as one poster wrote, just 'men being men.'

What has changed because of 'progressives' is that society now looks down on this behavior and considers it wrong and society does not blame the victim. In a way, it is like child abuse: believe it or not, society also would often blame the victim of child abuse, or they would not believe it, or the child would be punished by the abuser for speaking out, so children didn't speak out and society did not think it happened much.

There are parallels between sexual harrassment and child abuse (child abuse including physical, sexual, and psychological). Both situations have to do with those in power taking avantage of those with less or no power. Weinstein took advantage of younger women with less or no power. He couldn't get away with harrassing a mature and successful actress such as Meryl Streep.

 

[ChrisL]

If I ever came across some guy masturbating into a plant, I would think he was absolutely out of his mind or high on drugs or drunk or something. I can't even imagine the type of disturbed mindset it would take to do this type of thing (if it's true).

I don't doubt for a moment that this guy at least sexually harassed some women/actresses/whomever, but I also am aware that a lot of others will probably make false claims with their own motives for doing so (money, fame, just to get their names out there, whatever). Just remember, they are actresses.

No, I don't blame the women, whether they are "weak" or not. That is not an excuse. Do you beat up on a mentally challenged person because they don't know to fight back? No you do not because that is not how a civilized person would behave. It makes me pretty disgusted that a person like this would be so successful and famous and "respected" enough that one actress, during a speech, actually referred to him as "God." Perhaps she was just being sarcastic? Not sure.

Guys use plants to mastubate into and women use plants to masterbate.....weird but true.

I don't know where you are from, but I have never seen anyone do that before.

Does an apple pie count as a plant?

Probably not. The apple tree would be though.

I used to like apple pie!

I guess the next question could be "how much did you like the apple pie?"

 

[JoeMoma]

Guys use plants to mastubate into and women use plants to masterbate.....weird but true.

I don't know where you are from, but I have never seen anyone do that before.

Does an apple pie count as a plant?

Probably not. The apple tree would be though.

I used to like apple pie!

I guess the next question could be "how much did you like the apple pie?"

This much:

 

[EverCurious]

Hmmm interesting topic of discussion. I would say it's a combination of all your suggestions, plus more. I think perhaps the only common thread between all of the (rightly and wrongly) accused might be ego and over-confidence. Though I question that it's "coming out now" as some kind of revelation of sexual impropriety; after all how many husbands are caught fucking their secretaries? I believe such an idea is so common place that it's quasi-accepted, not so much that the wifes/girlfriends accept it, but society as a whole "recognizes" that it is very common. I think this too is very common, but just never gained traction until the influx of the "modern woman" revolution theme brought in by third wave feminism (to which I'd argue they attack this common acceptance as a matter of course.) It has to be said that to be successful one needs confidence, and most women are almost biologically attracted to confidence; those who have not swallowed the third wave "independence and strength arguments" anyway. So honestly, I would say it's /bound/ to happen often - not specifically that these men are sexual deviants, but rather that women have been attracted to them so often their egos begin to believe that every woman would appreciate sleeping with them. So I would argue it is not so much that the men think they are doing wrong and sexually assaulting girls "because they can get away with it," so much as they don't believe any woman would be offended by their advances.

To example, myself, as a narc, in my single days considered that anyone would be in a way flattered were I to make a move on them - and to be fair, being a woman that was generally true and most were very receptive to my advances, similar to these powerful/rich men.

While I generally strayed away from playing my games in corporate fields because I'm rather dedicated to my "work", I did indeed "sexually assault" (by modern definitions) some of my bosses - much to their delight, and I will also admit that I was rewarded once or twice career wise; though that was never actually my goal. Still I cannot say that such quid pro quo isn't the goal of these other folks or anything, I think it is perhaps "too common" in abuse of power type situations to discount that being the case; even if I've never had any boss hit on me unless I initiated, which was rare as it was a very rare type of man that could take me out of "business mode" and put me on those particular paths - perhaps there too my success rate was buffered in that I have a thing for authoritative dominant men who many women may find 'offensive,' even back in my day, and more so today (aka assholes)... That brings up a couple points though...

First, perhaps I am counter to your latter assertion regarding propriety. Your opinion of what's "proper" is not necessarily the same for others. While I do consider such things improper for a corporate environment, there are many, many cases where the "look good" rules of behavior are broken in the business world - it's all about knowing who you can trust. (Trust is an oft overlooked business trait...) My above is an example to another point as well; were it the other way around he'd likely be fired had he been caught, but as I made the move he'd be "forgiven" if we'd been caught. A related(ish) example would be, many corporate bosses censor their swear words in front of the secretary, and more so in front of the public eye, but such things fall away "with the other guys" because the hard truth is that if you're sharking a high profit language is so far down the list of shit that matters that it's not even really on the list.

Second, I think time needs to be recognized in the context of such a discussion. As another poster pointed out, things have changed (third wave feminism and the "coddled" culture) In my day, "David Cop-A-Feel" was a very common and hilarious joke in many circles, as were many, many other things that would be considered "rape," "sexual assault," or "sexual harassment" these days. There is a question of "intent" in my mind when one defines these things; while it's easy to say "/any/ unwanted touching" is "assault" I personally do not believe that is the case. Sexual assault for example is a violence, it is "assault" not a joking pat on the ass in front of ones wife that is never intended to go anywhere. (Yes, I do understand that some chicks find it offensive and crass, however, I hesitate to label it "assault" because there is no "violence" in it. ) It's like when our roommate inserts sexual innuendo, George Takie's "Ohhhh myyy," for example, is one of his favorites; it is merely a joke about a common human experience (sex) there is not an implication that he wants to have sex with my husband or I. Similarly if I tell my friend to blow me, I'm clearly not asking them to perform oral sex (I'm a woman for one) however there is a sexual implication involved in such a statement. Or when you make the jack off motion when someone's yapping at you on the phone.

Sex being a common human experience, I think jokes and many of the faux "sexual motions" that go with them cannot be stuffed under an automatic label of "sexual assault" or "sexual harassment" - to example President Trump saying "they'll let you grab em by the pussy" is not an indication that he's sexually assaulted anyone, it's not an indication that he would do so, it's merely an expression, a turn of phrase, that most men, and especially confident/powerful/rich/famous/sexy men all well understand. To a third wave feminist, to someone who's never experienced women fawning at their feet, it is a foreign idea that seems "off" or "wrong" because /they/ could never get away with such a thing. However, the fact he is 100% correct, there are many many women who would love to have a rich famous guy grab em by the pussy, and probably a number who would "let" them do it - as we see with all these Hollywood folks. And in fact, I think were you to flip the sexes in these present (right and wrong) cases, you'll find a lot more "acceptance" of what is supposedly sexual assault, harassment, etc. Here again modern feminism exploits the innate natural biological tendency for women to be protected from harm to push an idea; using that "weakness" is technically counter to their entire argument, but they'll use any tool in the shed to fund their agenda.

Thanks for putting thought into your reply. Notwithstanding some of what you'll read below, I do appreciate your doing so. It makes for richer conversation and it provides an indication that the writer isn't a "knee-jerk" flake, nut-job, or flat out "troll." I know that last bit isn't the greatest of accolades, but in this venue, such boors are so common that one's merely not being among them is itself remarkable.

First I'll say that the entire first paragraph was on the same vein, but I'll go through it none-the-less.

I think perhaps the only common thread between all of the (rightly and wrongly) accused might be ego and over-confidence.

How do you see the two as different in this context or in that of your essay? They strike me as the same thing in those regards.

Ego being a persons sense of importance. Over-confidence in the context of my continued statements (which you hit on later as a "separate" topic; specifically: "So honestly, I would say it's /bound/ to happen often - not specifically that these men are sexual deviants, but rather that women have been attracted to them so often their egos begin to believe that every woman would appreciate sleeping with them. So I would argue it is not so much that the men think they are doing wrong and sexually assaulting girls "because they can get away with it," so much as they don't believe any woman would be offended by their advances." and my further personal experience in the next paragraph.

It is a matter of truth that there are women who throw themselves at powerful men (or women these days.) A powerful wo/man becomes accustom to this in a way and it leads to them being "over confident" in a wo/man's welcoming of sexual overtures. I still well recall the first man who turned down my advances; it was almost a slap in the face I was so blind-sided by the idea that the guy wouldn't want to sleep with me. I was even a little mad at the guy for rejecting my advances; no more so than say one might be when turned down for a date by someone, but still the point was that I was over-confident.

society as a whole "recognizes" that it is very common.

Be that as it may, acknowledging the commonality of a thing, in this case a behavior, and acquiescing to its existence and, in turn, discounting it(or placing a premium on it) is but a form of "buying" an appeal to popularity. Ethical mores, thus the truths derived from them, are not a function of what is popular, but rather of what is, in the abstract, right or wrong, equitable or unequitable.

I'm afraid I write this kind of double-standard crap up to envy... When you have a nation where around 60% of men and 65% of women cheat on their significant others, where over half of all marriages will have some form of infidelity on one or both sides, when it is "common knowledge" that affairs happen at 7 and 15 years; it is completely hypocritical to not acknowledge "societal acceptance" of cheaters. To spin it as okay for the majority of the population, but wrong for any person who has power/money/fame is nothing more than envy and bullshit.

My husband recently had an affair on me, trust me I do understand that such betrayal is wrong, disloyal, and hurtful. I completely get the consequences it has caused in my own ability to believe in him as someone I could die with, someone I could trust to care for me "in sickness and in health," and the anger [...rage really] that he walked away from me, from us, gave up on us without even talking to me. It would be fucking wonderful if such things were not so common and accepted, but that is just not reality...

Reality is surprisingly often based upon individual perception; and when I am honest with myself, in my husbands situation, given what /he/ perceived was going on in our marriage, I would have done the same. For me to deny that reality would be nearly as wrong and disloyal to him. I will not hypocritically sit here and argue that I'm better than him, nor that I would have done something different in his shoes...

Hypocrisy is unequitable in my opinion. If your average Jane and John are fucking around on each other, it's no surprise the rich and powerful suffer the same flaws.

theme brought in by third wave feminism (to which I'd argue they attack this common acceptance as a matter of course.)

As well they should on purely rational grounds. Forbearance of sexual harassment/abuse on the basis that "it happens often" is irrational (see immediately preceding comment) and reprehensible.

You're reading my paragraph incorrectly, as that statement was about husbands fucking their secretaries - ie cheating. See above commentary.

That said, and for those who might be swayed by such arguments, I say be wary of jumping up on a moral high horse and chiding folks that they shouldn't do that. My religious husband has been rather arrogantly telling me for seventeen fucking years that he was "saving me" from my sins of open marriages and bisexuality. Ah yes, the savior who couldn't even save himself... he fell upon the very cross he put upon my back - I find the irony of it darkly amusing.

It's real easy to sit there in your current frame of mind, your current "perception" as it were, and say that you would never cheat on your significant other. Next thing you know it's 40 years later, you're feeling dissatisfied, your morals fail, and you do that thing you said you would /never/ do - and worse, you're justifying it as okay to yourself...

It has to be said that to be successful one needs confidence, and most women are almost biologically attracted to confidence;

Self-confidence is an intoxicating trait; however, like all character traits, having too much of it is to be depraved.

"Depraved" is such an interpretative term...

I would say it's /bound/ to happen often - not specifically that these men are sexual deviants, but rather that women have been attracted to them so often their egos begin to believe that every woman would appreciate sleeping with them. So I would argue it is not so much that the men think they are doing wrong and sexually assaulting girls "because they can get away with it," so much as they don't believe any woman would be offended by their advances

What? That smacks of a strange mix of "myriad 'Mata Haris' made me do it" and the "old Hollywood" image of women swooning uncontrollably in response to a mere kiss or other minor bit of attention paid to them by a man, most especially a man of means. No paucity of "p-words" come to mind when pondering that notion: provincial, paternalistic, and procrustean being first among them. Surely that isn't what you mean?

I'm not sure how you got this impression sorry. Women are indeed throwing themselves at men who are rich/powerful/famous, this leads to an inflated ego in those men, and thus a belief that all women want them. You can mince words all you want, but the reality is that men are creatures of habit; if women habitually fall at their feet, they oft start to think of themselves as gods gift to women. Over confidence is the mistake - the blind belief that /all/ women are interested in them, the mistaken idea that they'd all be happy to have your attention, etc.

You're struggling to make this about "assault," about harassment, about poor morals. I'm telling you it's more likely ego rather than "evil intentions."

To example, myself, as a narc, in my single days considered that anyone would be in a way flattered were I to make a move on them - and to be fair, being a woman that was generally true and most were very receptive to my advances

Well, if they were genuinely receptive, or were they going along with the program, so to speak? I don't know, but I have come by enough men who are so pathetic that they, not the women unfortunate enough to bear them a second glance, will swoon at the most meager bit of attention paid to them by any woman -- even "four baggers" -- and, in turn, overestimate the significance of that attention.

What does being a "narc" have to do with it? I must ask because among the men and women I know, myself included, being good looking, fit and reasonably personable and interesting are the things inspired others to be flattered (if indeed they were -- for the most part almost everyone in my social circles since about high school has had those qualities ) to be the objects of our attentions. Discovering what we do for a living isn't generally something we disclose in more than vague terms unless/until the relationship moves to more than the "hook up" level; thus it really has little to do with the initial or even early-stage attraction or flattery.

What is to be said of all these actors who "went along with it" then? For the most part, the strong, confident ones said no and walked away no harm done. Those who did not walk away, de-facto consented by "rational" standards. If a man is whacking off in front of you and you don't say something along the lines of "ewww knock it off perv" and leave, well then...

I admit, I also have serious issues with the third wave feminism definitions of assault, harassment, and rape. If you're both drunk and you have sex, it's not fucking rape. It's a mistake - you deal with the fact that you made a drunken mistake, hopefully learn from your mistake, you don't destroy someone else's life to try and make it okay with your boyfriend... Just one example of many that I consider bullshit. Similarly if a guy makes a move on a girl, regardless of why he thinks she's into it (his own ego, her flirty attitude, or even just because she smiled at him), I don't consider that "assault" or "harassment" I consider that a... perhaps very forward attempt at a relationship (even if it's just sex.) The end game of such premises is basically that you need to bring a lawyer before you can touch a girl or give her a kiss. It's ... fucking ridiculous.

The narc thing, (and again as I noted, that entire first paragraph is the same "idea" comparing cheating - despite you taking it as multiple ideas. However I'll expand on it under your assumption) Narc has a shit ton to do with it. Narc's are egotistical, over confident, and often brash in their actions. SUCCESSFUL narcs are at even more of a disadvantage under these new definitions of "assault and harassment" because those types are used to moving boldly to get what they want.

You are trying to frame these folks actions under third wave feminist ideas of "assault" and "harassment" or "bad morals" from /your/ personal perspective - I am telling you that your perspective is not the same as mine; a successful narc...

I can tell you exactly how this kind of shit happens because I've been in the position myself. So back in the hmmm early 2k I believe, a corp was filing a restructure bankruptcy and had brought me and a lawyer in for consult. We were waiting on confirmation receipt of the final paperwork and I [read my ego] misjudged his interest in me big league. Perhaps fortunate for me I'd taken a *cough* tame approach and merely snagged his tie and jerked him forward into a kiss. I [read my ego] thought he was interested, but he declined. To imply that because he didn't want to be kissed, means I in some way "raped," sexually "assaulted" or "harassed," him is intellectually dishonest. To argue that this incident contained any malicious or violent "intent" on my part is flat out wrong. I merely misread his interest and made a move on him, albeit a "forward" and "aggressive" move, it was fairly consistent with my personal "manner" of making a move. Thankfully he wasn't a third wave feminist and we laughed about it for a number of years afterward; as I recall his words were along the lines of "While I'm flattered..."

Perspective is a bit personal, and from my perspective, asking a woman for a massage (or offering to give her one) is /not/ sexual assault or harassment. Asking her to watch you shower is a bit more forward but still not assault or harassment. Jerking off in a plant is maybe pushing it; however, if they stay well then thats de-facto consent. Now we can debate the belief these girls had, that they didn't have a choice, but a strong confident woman knows that there is /always/ a choice, and the honest woman admits that they chose to accept it because they wanted to forward their career. Is it perhaps scummy on jack-offs part? Sure, but is it assault or harassment? No. Is it illegal? No.

I did indeed "sexually assault" (by modern definitions) some of my bosses - much to their delight

What? Assault is by definition unwanted. Assaults of all sorts didn't just in the 21st century come to be undesired moves upon a person, regardless of the explicit language in any given section of Code. What, in any temporal frame, is delightful about an unwanted move?

Disagreed, see above.

Perhaps expand the idea a bit; if your booty call sucks your toes and you find that gross, did they just "assault" you? It was "unwanted touching" even if your lover wasn't aware of that fact. I merely argue that if whom-the-fuck ever was merely hitting on the girl (in his own weird way) then that doesn't rise to the level of "social outrage" that we're seeing. Scummy, sure, "assault" or "harassment" ... not necessarily.

Intention is the more "key" factor in my opinion. Violence is the "danger" part that society and the law needs to protect against. I'm not condoning the actions, nor saying I agree with them, however, I am saying that modern feminists are so quick to paint themselves the victim that they muddy the water with what are actual "crimes" and "threats", and what are merely "mistakes" or "mis-judgements" on the guys part.

And again, the hypocrisy is a major problem for me; if I grab a man by the balls in a sexual manner he's very unlikely to consider that assault; even if he didn't want it - because society as a general rule does not feel the need to protect men, and there is not some third wave masculinity movement calling excessive amounts of attention to perceived "assaults" and as such there is a discrepancy, and an inequality, between the genders. If we are going to use terms like "sexual assault" and "sexual harassment" in a quasi-legal manner as this situation is, then it should not be gender specific, it has to be equally applied to be valid in my personal opinion. Otherwise all we have basically amounts to... whining.

That is not to say that folks cannot start a social movement to try to change the situation, but rather that the attempt to in effect change the rules after the game is over is a bit unfair. Its like these days (were I still on the market) I would not make any move on a guy or girl because it's just not worth the risk, but back in the 90s, 2000, even probably all the way through 2009 or 2010, it was more "acceptable" and frankly back then I didn't have a second thought about throwing a guy against his desk and "ravaging" him - no one complained, no one whined, no one sued. Those were different times, different upbringings, different "acceptance" standards, and different definitions...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If I ever came across some guy masturbating into a plant, I would think he was absolutely out of his mind or high on drugs or drunk or something. I can't even imagine the type of disturbed mindset it would take to do this type of thing (if it's true).

I don't doubt for a moment that this guy at least sexually harassed some women/actresses/whomever, but I also am aware that a lot of others will probably make false claims with their own motives for doing so (money, fame, just to get their names out there, whatever). Just remember, they are actresses.

No, I don't blame the women, whether they are "weak" or not. That is not an excuse. Do you beat up on a mentally challenged person because they don't know to fight back? No you do not because that is not how a civilized person would behave. It makes me pretty disgusted that a person like this would be so successful and famous and "respected" enough that one actress, during a speech, actually referred to him as "God." Perhaps she was just being sarcastic? Not sure.

Guys use plants to mastubate into and women use plants to masterbate.....weird but true.

I thought I have seen everything. I knew a hooker that would stomp on bugs wearing white high heels while her john masturbated. But never knew anyone into plants.