Well.. they can and do commit rape with the normal use of their 'equipment'. All of those biological bits will operate without the consent of the conscious mind on both men and women. It's the exact reasoning given that makes it hard on the victims - if the same argument was made regarding female victims and lubrication, it would be rightful torch and pitchfork time from most anyone with any feminist tendencies at all, yet people just -assume- that the reverse function isn't true.
I came across a quote in this thread: http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showt...t=43252&page=2 by Otterpop that pretty well sums up the relative freedom of men and women to talk about sex in the modern office:
When a high level woman propositions a male subordinate I just don't think a male in such a position is very motivated to complain about it. If he's married and faithful, he'll probably just say he's flattered to be offered sex. But he likely has little motivation to seek to tarnish her reputation or bring her down. And if he does accept the proposition, I don't think he has the same incentive to attempt to blackmail the woman to give him money in order to keep quiet. What man complains about such a situation? And if he does complain, I think people would be less likely to believe it happened than when the sexes are reversed.Originally posted by otterpop
The English language is instructive here; There is no corresponding word for mistress that is applied to a man. The existence of a mistress is usually kept secret, and money is often paid to them. So does the lack of a word for a male in this position mean that women never have sexual relations outside of marriage that they want to be kept a secret? Or does it mean that males with whom married women have liaisons have neither the inclination nor the power to demand money from a woman in such position? It is obviously the latter. This too goes a long way toward explaining why powerful women don't have sex scandals. Men are only too happy to find a woman who is willing. That she may be breaking her marriage vows is her moral responsibility. The woman doesn't have to worry about the man getting pregnant by her. So the man poses no visible threat that would require her to pay him to keep quiet about their affair.
A woman who wants it to be known she's had sex with a certain man can easily make it obvious by changing her body language and showing less personal distance. But if a woman is on the defense from a man accusing her of using her position to have sex with him, she can very easily maintain a cold posture toward him. But the man can't get close in the way that would make it obvious they've been intimate, without himself running the risk of being accused of sexual harassment. That's just a fundamental and unavoidable difference in our culture. Women allow access to them and grant intimacy to others. The default position for men is that they are unwelcome until others grant them access to intimacy.
So strong is this affect that even a woman who has never been intimate with a man, could rub up close to a man and create such an uncomfortable situation that accusations would arise against him. So women can basically create the impression that an intimate relationship has occurred, even if they are completely lying because we allow women leeway to be aggressive in making physical contact with others without being perceived as acting sexually menacing.
Of course most women don't ever behave this way. I'm just pointing out that if they wanted to, they could readily take advantage of these assumptions and norms and use them against a man on completely false pretences. And even if found to be lying, there is very little likelihood of charges being brought against women for doing so.
Last edited by dobopoq; 06 Sep 2011 at 1:50 AM.
I think you spend way too much time over analyzing this subject and how to fit it into nice and neat categories. Harassment goes both ways...whether it be advances, uncomfortable subject matter being discussed, etc....if it's unwelcome and unwanted then it is harassment IMHO.
I think certain fields of employment are more tolerant of said harassment and perhaps even encouraging of it, but that does not make it right in any way. Wherever there is power and money there is sex. This goes for both men and women, it's the way of human nature and whether we like to admit it or not we have innate tendencies although most of us are pretty good at overruling them in the best interest of self preservation. Affairs go both ways, I don't think that men cheat any more than women do although they may admit to it more freely.
I guess the biggest issue most folks have with your line of thinking is that it is overly reliant upon generalizations and suppositions that it's really hard to discern a credible argument or point from them.
As an aside you might find this an interesting read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizab..._b_945733.html
Last edited by kjel; 06 Sep 2011 at 12:33 PM.
"He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16
This goes way beyond polite conversation in any area of the country.
I'm done. You need to get a hooker.
Not interested in having sex with a hooker.
So you agree then that this conversation out loud between two women was highly inappropriate in the workplace - do you not? To me, it constitutes the female version of sexual harrassment of men.
Sexual harrassment of men in the workplace takes a different form than that of men doing it to women. It's not usually about a woman propositioning a man or using her position to threaten a man's job if he doesn't have sex with her. It's about women rubbing it in the face of men in public at work that they know men desire them and essentially telling all the men they can go *uck themselves. It's typically a more indirect form of harrassment since it involves talking down to one or men albeit in a somewhat indirect way. It's also a blatant advertisement of their sexuality to those who are cocky enough to try to flirt with her. So men then run the risk of finding out whether their flirting with her is welcome, or grounds for losing their job - depending upon her caprice.
Women risk plenty too like pregnancy, or being raped. Both sexes risk STD's. So there are differential risks in the mating game that probably equal out. But within the context of people who do not commit violent crimes, who are trying to maybe find a sex partner at work, deciding right or wrong is something women have more discretion on than men, IMO. Women have very little to worry about in the workplace when it comes to being ACCUSED of sexual harrassment. As long as it's a seller's market for sex (that is - there are more men seeking to get it, than there are women willing to give it up), men will always be the ones who are sexually poor. If there were 10 women for every man in the population, then it would be a buyers market for sex (ie women would be willing to give it up more often than men would able to perform).
I'm sure some women may resent my referring to sex as "giving it up" on the part of the woman, and "getting it" on the part of the man. This is just a shorthand way of referring to the power relations - since sex is something women have to "allow" to occur, and men have to be "allowed" by women to have it. This should not be taken to mean that sex is a one-way street for men's pleasure. I greatly enjoy the scent of a women and give my all to try to pleasure her. I say this, because I can just imagine the women here starting to bash me as only being interested in pleasing myself. That is often the case among men. But just because the female orgasm is often a more difficult summit to reach, doesn't mean it isn't worth the effort.
You aren't wrong, but you still sound like you need to just relax and start asking women out outside of work barely better than randomly. There are billions of theoretically eligible women out there, millions of which are potential Mrs. Right. If they say no, they're doing you the favor of sparing you time. Quit caring so much about individual opinions and start marketing yourself.
If this conversation happened and it made you uncomfortable, than it certainly falls within the parameters (in the same sense that Clarence Thomas talking to female coworkers about pornography is at the very least, questionable).
But, really, you should be discussing this with the human resources department. I think that would yield a better result for you than this forum. This conversation is so off the rails at this point, I'm not really sure what it is you are hoping to get out of folks' feedback/comments.
The purpose of life is a life of purpose
Moderator note:
Excellent observation by wahday. Thread closed.
Not valid without corporate seal
