Whoa... what's wrong with staring at a girl?
Malgorzata E. Kaminska
Mark Mielke (al...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Accusations of being lecherous and only thinking of women as a slab of
> meat is entirely uncalled for.
I agree with you there.
> "Staring" is most definately not a crime.
Lets forget Paul. Lets consider this statement as an independant
one. Though I will agree with you that staring as such is not a crime, it
does become one (and it is called sexual harassment) when the look is
directed towards parts of the body that have some kind of sexual
connection. Of course, in order for it to be harassment as such the
person being stared at has to feel extremely uncomfortable, and such is
the case when one feels that they are being "undressed". So, it doesn't
really matter if you're a guy or a girl, if your stare makes others
uncomfortable because they believe it is directed towards some intimate
parts of themselves then it is wrong. And even the law says so. Of
course, the person being stared at has an obligation as well, and that is
to inform the other person of how he/she feels by being stared at. I knew
those Engineering classes would pay off in the long run. Actually,
that's not true, but now I'm happy that I stayed awake yesterday when the
Prof was talking about women in Engineering. If I didn't feel inferior
to men before getting to class, I sure did after he was done "praising"
women who are Engineers and Scientists. :-)
Mal.
--
Our ends are joined by a common link:
With one we sit, with one we think.
Success depends on which we use:
Heads we win, tails we lose. ~~ Heard in a recent lecture on Neuroanatomy
Mark Mielke
Hey people...
Accusations of being lecherous and only thinking of women as a slab of
meat is entirely uncalled for. I don't personally know one guy who hasn't
mentally undressed another human being. In fact i would go so far as to
say it would be unnatural to not have done so at least once or thrice in
ones life.
Paul over-reacts. Paul gets over-defensive when under accusation and will
go so far as to deny witnessed accounts in order to "clear" his name as he
sees it. Paul is quite paranoid from receiving so much criticism to his
over-defensiveness. BUT THAT'S WHERE IT STOPS PEOPLE.
He's just as human as any one of us, and as such makes mistakes, thinks
about members of the opposite sex in less than an intellectual spirit and
finds it quite important to defend his honour! I think paul understands
that at least sometimes he overreacts... the paranoia is most likely a
symptom of past treatment by people. "Staring" is most definately not a crime.
mark
--
ma...@echelon.ca / ma...@nortel.ca _________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Northern Telecom Ltd. |
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | Box 3511, Station 'C' |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 |
Mark Mielke
Malgorzata E. Kaminska (ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Mark Mielke (al...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> "Staring" is most definately not a crime.
>
> Lets forget Paul. Lets consider this statement as an independant
> one. Though I will agree with you that staring as such is not a crime, it
> does become one (and it is called sexual harassment) when the look is
> directed towards parts of the body that have some kind of sexual
> connection. Of course, in order for it to be harassment as such the
> person being stared at has to feel extremely uncomfortable, and such is
> the case when one feels that they are being "undressed". So, it doesn't
> really matter if you're a guy or a girl, if your stare makes others
> uncomfortable because they believe it is directed towards some intimate
> parts of themselves then it is wrong. And even the law says so. Of
> course, the person being stared at has an obligation as well, and that is
> to inform the other person of how he/she feels by being stared at. I knew
> those Engineering classes would pay off in the long run. Actually,
> that's not true, but now I'm happy that I stayed awake yesterday when the
> Prof was talking about women in Engineering. If I didn't feel inferior
> to men before getting to class, I sure did after he was done "praising"
> women who are Engineers and Scientists. :-)
Being a desirable sex doesn't make you any less of a person. I happen to
find myself strongly attracted to a pretty girl who is quite intelligent.
If you seriously think that staring at someone with the intention of
"undressing" them (imagining what certain parts of their body would look
like or feel like) then i'm afraid the entire male race if not most of the
female race would have to be put in jail for life :-)
Just because you find someone staring at you and you get uncomfortable
doesn't mean the person has sexually harassed you. Mens Rea and Actus Reus
are both required as i remember correctly. If i think of killing you, i
have not commited a crime according to our judiciary system until i create
a plan and show intention to execute it. Even attempted murder can only
hold if intention can be proved. If i began hitting on you and i doped
your drink with a tranquilizer... that's attempted rape.
Until then? completely innocent.
I do vaguely remember a certain case where a woman filed a law suit
against a guy for staring at her over the fence that separated their
yards. As i remember it she won in a court of appeal, but it wasn't on
sexual harassment, but violation of privacy. If it had happened in a
street i doubt anything could have been done unless the person followed
her continuously. (i.e. stalked? :-) ) But their was absolutely nothing
about sexual harassment.
mark (who occasionally stares at girls and imagines them nude)
P.S. I find the entire "sexual harassment" movement quite disturbing.
The ability to have someone fired simply on one's word is a rather
nasty power that has time and time again been proven to corrupt.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
>>> "Staring" is most definately not a crime.
>> Lets forget Paul. Lets consider this statement as an independant
>> one. Though I will agree with you that staring as such is not a crime, it
>> does become one (and it is called sexual harassment) when the look is
>> directed towards parts of the body that have some kind of sexual
>> connection. Of course, in order for it to be harassment as such the
>> person being stared at has to feel extremely uncomfortable, and such is
>> the case when one feels that they are being "undressed". So, it doesn't
>> really matter if you're a guy or a girl, if your stare makes others
>> uncomfortable because they believe it is directed towards some intimate
>> parts of themselves then it is wrong. And even the law says so. Of
>> course, the person being stared at has an obligation as well, and that is
>> to inform the other person of how he/she feels by being stared at. I knew
>> those Engineering classes would pay off in the long run. Actually,
>> that's not true, but now I'm happy that I stayed awake yesterday when the
>> Prof was talking about women in Engineering. If I didn't feel inferior
>> to men before getting to class, I sure did after he was done "praising"
>> women who are Engineers and Scientists. :-)
> Being a desirable sex doesn't make you any less of a person. I happen to
> find myself strongly attracted to a pretty girl who is quite intelligent.
>
> If you seriously think that staring at someone with the intention of
> "undressing" them (imagining what certain parts of their body would look
> like or feel like) then i'm afraid the entire male race if not most of the
> female race would have to be put in jail for life :-)
*shrug* A distinct possibility.
However, if I'm trying to have a conversation with someone and s/he won't
make or maintain eye contact because s/he keeps on staring at my body, it
tends to get uncomfortable. It's not so much the fact that your body is
being stared at as the fact that s/he would rather consider a piece of
meat (which, let's face it, is nothing patrticularly special, and they
could look at something doubtless equally as pleasing when I'm *not*
trying to talk to them, it's not like there's any shortage of bodies in
this world) than pay attention to what I'm saying.
No, it's not always intended that way and not always taken that way, but
when it is, tempers tend to flare rather easily.
> Just because you find someone staring at you and you get uncomfortable
> doesn't mean the person has sexually harassed you. Mens Rea and Actus Reus
> are both required as i remember correctly. If i think of killing you, i
> have not commited a crime according to our judiciary system until i create
> a plan and show intention to execute it. Even attempted murder can only
> hold if intention can be proved. If i began hitting on you and i doped
> your drink with a tranquilizer... that's attempted rape.
> Until then? completely innocent.
Yes, but if you begin hitting on me, I tell you to leave me alone, and you
keep doing it, that's harassment.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Mark Mielke
Frances Kathleen Moffatt (dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Yes, but if you begin hitting on me, I tell you to leave me alone, and you
> keep doing it, that's harassment.
Point exactly :-) Staring is most definately not a crime. If someone is
staring at you the most you can do is walk away. If they FOLLOW it's
stalking. If they hit on you it's sexual harassment. If they put a
tranquilizer in their drink it's rape, but staring? Means nothing and
nothing can be done about it.
mark
P.S.
The reason i find the claim of "sexual harassment" so disturbing is that
there is no real evidence to support most claims. Sometimes we joke about
it at work, but then we have to be serious about it. Some of my female
co-workers often hug me - but according to some bulletins we recieved in
corporate mail, this is 100% wrong and a person could be fired for it. The
company doesn't want to get in trouble for supporting sexual harassment
even if unintentional. This is SICK if you ask me. How do you prove sexual
intention? What if i'm a huggy type person? And you're not? Well obviously
if the person was told once or twice that "i don't take hugs well...
please do not hug me" then there's a case... but if it was the first time?
I find that mildly frightening that an accident bump in the hallway could
be my ultimate downfall :-( (And the most distressing evidence of this is
that most sexual harassment claims are made against rich people - How can
this be unless the money is part of the decision? "I'm your two-bit lawyer
but i can make you lotsa of money on a sexual harassment case. Did he
touch you at any way at any time?" "Well yes it was an accident though"
"Doesn't matter, i can word it so the jury won't care!" "Is this right?"
"Do you want 10,000,000 dollars? This is bill gates we're talking about...
he can afford it!" (this is an entirely make believe conversation between
a lawyer and a client about bill gates - if i was bill gates i'd be
HORRIBLE afraid of such a case... the judge might try and make a model for
all sexual harassment cases on me... even if i didn't do it... JUST
because i had money... SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
Ian, could you check your email?
>> Yes, but if you begin hitting on me, I tell you to leave me alone, and you
>> keep doing it, that's harassment.
> Point exactly :-) Staring is most definately not a crime. If someone is
> staring at you the most you can do is walk away. If they FOLLOW it's
> stalking. If they hit on you it's sexual harassment. If they put a
> tranquilizer in their drink it's rape, but staring? Means nothing and
> nothing can be done about it.
Actually, if they put a drug in your drink, ...uhm... I think it'd be
some form of assault. If they put a drug in your drink and then have sex
with you, it's rape. *grumble* Let's hear it for pharmacology... Bleh.
In most cases, you're right, it doesn't mean anything. IAC, I agree with
you that nothing can be done about staring, and in most cases it's not
anything that can't be ignored.
> P.S.
> The reason i find the claim of "sexual harassment" so disturbing is that
> there is no real evidence to support most claims. Sometimes we joke about
> it at work, but then we have to be serious about it. Some of my female
> co-workers often hug me - but according to some bulletins we recieved in
> corporate mail, this is 100% wrong and a person could be fired for it. The
> company doesn't want to get in trouble for supporting sexual harassment
> even if unintentional. This is SICK if you ask me. How do you prove sexual
> intention? What if i'm a huggy type person? And you're not? Well obviously
> if the person was told once or twice that "i don't take hugs well...
> please do not hug me" then there's a case... but if it was the first time?
> I find that mildly frightening that an accident bump in the hallway could
> be my ultimate downfall :-( (And the most distressing evidence of this is
> that most sexual harassment claims are made against rich people - How can
> this be unless the money is part of the decision? "I'm your two-bit lawyer
> but i can make you lotsa of money on a sexual harassment case. Did he
> touch you at any way at any time?" "Well yes it was an accident though"
> "Doesn't matter, i can word it so the jury won't care!" "Is this right?"
> "Do you want 10,000,000 dollars? This is bill gates we're talking about...
> he can afford it!" (this is an entirely make believe conversation between
> a lawyer and a client about bill gates - if i was bill gates i'd be
> HORRIBLE afraid of such a case... the judge might try and make a model for
> all sexual harassment cases on me... even if i didn't do it... JUST
> because i had money... SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK
Most sexual harassment claims are made against rich people? Or the most
publicized ones are, because many rich people (take the Bill Gates
example) are something of a public figure?
OTOH, there's the *lack* of this sort of response to a lot of rape cases.
In some places, if someone rapes you, it's easier to simply charge him
with indecent exposure - the defense can't go into your personal life,
they're not allowed to ask what you were doing at the time, you're not
blamed for it, and it's generally easier to get on with your life. Plus
which the sentances tend to be stiffer. Which is just sick. I'm sorry,
you can spend more time in jail for indecent exposure than rape?? (Note -
this is in the USA, folks. I haven't read up on Canadian laws in a while)
Love and coffee,
Frances