4 ms·
> Men used to be able to basically hit on women in all contexts with zero consequence Zero legal consequence -- social consequence or vigilante consequence was
by wnoise 7y ago
> Men used to be able to basically hit on women in all contexts with zero consequence
Zero legal consequence -- social consequence or vigilante consequence was always a possibility.
> More recently, people have been pushing back on men who are inappropriate
What's considered inappropriate is precisely what's changing.
> The new rules are essentially 'be respectful' and "there's a time a place" and 'politely accept no as an answer' and 'no one owes you shit'.
Those have always been the rules.
What has changed is what counts as respectful, and exactly when and where are the allowed times and places.
There really are those pushing a message that any (non-reciprocated) sexual interest is disrespectful. Excluding work from allowed time-and-place and then "there's a time and place" excludes the places where one spends a great deal of one's time out of the house, with people one knows and can judge, and are likely to be prefiltered to have similar interests and socio-economic background. Work romances are still a huge proportion of how marriages start.
> They aren't complicated rules.
They are when the underlying terms are in the process of being redefined.
- Pfhreak 7y agoAgree to disagree on all counts?
- wnoise 7y agoUm sure, I guess. I really would like to understand how and why you disagree though, but I think if I said anymore, it would just be reiterating my points in a not terribly useful way.
- Mirioron 7y agoYou can disagree, but we know that young men are having less sex than ever before. We also know that young men are having significantly less sex than young women. Something is broken in the system and I'm afraid that something this fundamental to humans can result in bad consequences.
- Pfhreak 7y agoOk, I'm willing to believe the less sex claim for the sake of argument. But "something is broken" doesn't follow from those data. Maybe things were broken before, and they are normal now? I'd certainly believe things are different, sure.
- Mirioron 7y agohttps://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-americans-not-having-sex-has-reached-record-high https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-ame... I don't think that it's normal that 28% of men between the ages of 18 and 30 haven't had sex in the last year, while the same percentage is 18% for women? Especially since the rates were very similar between men and women in the past. These men are likely to be less invested in society than previous generations. The effects of this are unknown, but it's considered that surplus men cause society to become less stable.