3 ms·
It isn't in dispute? In what sense? I'd dispute it in this sense: women, like humans of any gender, are more likely to apply different standards based on pre-e
by sidlls 9y ago
It isn't in dispute? In what sense?
I'd dispute it in this sense: women, like humans of any gender, are more likely to apply different standards based on pre-existing status (e.g. whether they're friends already or not) but not to the degree that as a rule they'd welcome a sexual advance from one co-worker and not an identical one from another based simply on attractiveness, or that they'd consider the unwanted one harassment.
This isn't hard: women are humans and capable of rational thought, just like men. Your comment diminishes them.
- friendzis 9y agoIf you define sexual assault/harassment including term "undesirable/unwanted sexual advances" and accept attractiveness to be one of factors influencing evaluation of another person as potential mate, it becomes not that hard to see lower limits for actions to be labelled "unwanted" as varying based on attractiveness of advancing person regardless of gender or social setting. This would directly translate to welcome a sexual advance from one co-worker but not an identical one from another based simply on attractiveness. Social setting (e.g. workplace) may drive the lower limit below skirting board for some individuals, but that does not make certain social settings universally irrationality free grounds where evaluation as potential mate has no effect on social (and even professional) interactions. While both men and women are capable of rational thought, likewise both are not individuality, emotion and desires free.
- sidlls 9y agoYou don't think it's likely that women can view a man as being attractive and still not want sexual advances from him? How about possible? That humans aren't purely rational does not imply irrational behavior is the rule. Your comment reads to me as asserting that women are basically incapable of moderating their behavior based on sexual desire.