Social Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

[MikeMcMann]

That's not the allegation. The allegation is that he traced the tattoo even under the edge of her clothing with his finger.

I'm ok with that even if true but he disputes that for the record.

She is not an employee or a student of his. He is not in any position of power over her. Taking an excuse for incidental touching, if your intention is to flirt is what men (and women) look for. And you look to see how the other reacts.

If you have been on dates, you probably remember for times where you are looking for that moment or excuse to break the touch barrier as it is a key escalator in flirtations.

I would never let some random dude physically trace anything on my body without my permission. That shit is a true boundaries violation. Ask, get permission first.

Which is fine but not everyone is that uptight (again nothing wrong with that).

If someone is showing me a tattoo of something on their arm and i trace it saying 'what is that supposed to be?' i would not see that as offensive. But people are different. I have friends who are far more touchy than me and can make me feel uncomfortable and I often joke with them to back off. Again, people are different.

Remember the Al Frankin gal who thought him putting his hand on her waist during a picture was a metoo moment saying her husband does not even touch her like that. People are different. And while both ladies have every right to say 'I am not comfortable with that', It is not what the metoo movement is for.

That kicks in after you give him that information that you are not comfortable.

Yeah, it is. That's the whole point of understanding boundaries and what consensual behavior means. That whether or not something is OK is based on the people and the context involved. I let my boys talk shit at the bar because we're cool. I don't let my boys talk shit in a professional setting, even though we're still cool. I don't let someone else talk shit at the bar, even though it's cool if my boys do it.

yes context and how the guy reacts when given further information is key.

Trying to be engaging doesn't require that we also try to be potentially sexual. Every married person understands the difference if they want to stay married.



No, flirting doesn't have to OK in every situation. Think through what you're saying. If flirting is always ok - is it okay to flirt while you're married? Do you want your lawyer flirting with opposing counsel in court? Flirting with the judge in court? Does it matter if the judge does not like that shit - do you turn to your attorney and say "no big deal"?

People have the self-discipline to pick and choose WHEN they flirt.

I never suggested or meant that flirting in every situation was ok. I maintain that flirting HAS TO BE OK, in that we can never ask men to never flirt or expect them not to unless it is asked for by the woman first.

yes situationaly it matters. A social event and after party where Neil was at is exactly where people tend to flirt.

And yes married people get to flirt to. there is no prohibition on married people flirting. that does not mean the other partner would like it if they see it being done, but humans flirt. Even married ones even if they have no intention to do anything with said flirting.

Listen, I can debate this all day but it really boils down a very simple principle. Our actions are always subject to the interpretation of those we interact with. Regardless of our intent, how others perceive those actions matters.

To swing legal for a minute:

Battery - an unwanted touching. That's the basic definition pretty much everywhere. It does not matter why Person A touched Person B. It matters if Person B wanted the touching. Now compare that your earlier concern about flirting being OK sometimes and not OK other times. Battery, a centuries old legal concept, uses the exact same reasoning. Whether or not something is OK turns on how the recipient felt about it in that singular circumstance. It doesn't matter that they were fine with it yesterday, it doesn't matter if they were fine with it from one person and not another. In that singular moment - did they want to be touched by that other person?

Trespass - intentionally entering someone's property without permission. It doesn't matter why you entered the property. It matters if they agreed to let you do it. Entering someone's yard to get your ball. Okay with permission. Criminal without permission.

Theft - taking someone's property without permission. Take someone's ball from their yard. Okay with permission. Criminal without permission.

Over and over again, the criminal code tells us that an important difference between allowed and disallowed behavior is if you received permission before you acted.

For me it comes down to how she responds to it. Putting up legal definitions is silly as any hand touch or kiss on a date executed before the other party asks for it is battery if they tell you they did not want it after.

A silly standard to apply to dating as you would then have to tell all men to simply not risk battery. Never initiate touch or a kiss without knowing first. And sadly that may be where we end up, Can i touch your hand. Can I kiss you now. Can I touch your breast. And some Universities are saying that continuos consent in dating is the standard. Just because she is making out with you does not mean you can touch her breast.

I recognize that a gal who may be making out with you may indeed stop you if you touch her breast. that is not a metoo moment imo. However how you react to her stopping you can be.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Never used to give it a second thought but now it’s hard to know where the line is when they cross it for you

But again I’m excluding people already

And that is the problem that men (mostly men) face.

That line is different for every individual and yet men are EXPECTED to take the risk and navigate it. They are EXPECTED to be the one to initiate and flirt (yes some women will but overwhelming men are expected to). And men will fail more times than not, meaning the attention was not wanted or desired more times than not and that IS OK. Men still HAVE to try. Awkward, clumsy and often wrong, they still have to try.

Failing is not the problem but how they react to that failure (being told no) can RIGHTLY then become a metoo issue.

It's a personal line. That part is not hard. It only becomes hard if you're trying to gauge your line by some other social standard - like whether or not it's bad for the company, what will it do to that co-worker.

That line gets much more treacherous in a work setting or any setting where one might have power over the other.
That said marriages between people at work are still one of the biggest groupings for who gets married.

Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos cannot simply be right because their women ultimately said yes, but if those same women said no then they were wrong and metoo'able. Again it would come down to how they handled the no that would matter.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Ok, but that falls under what I said (and @panamaican seems to have fully addressed this).

It is entirely inappropriate to do this to a co-worker or an employee without explicit permission. "Don't be creepy" includes don't tough here or lift her clothing to see underneath.

I don't have an opinion on NDT but for the work place it's inappropriate.

see my prior post re work V social.

Work makes it far more treacherous and I think both sexes have an obligation to be far more forth coming before taking any 'risks'. I personally just refuse and always have at work even though I have had clear indication from women they are interested.

But when you recognize that work might be the single biggest setting where couples who marry meet you must recognize that flirting will be part of that process.

So for example in my company we set an HR policy that workers of equal status can date and do not have to inform us. If there is a difference in status (manager v worker bee) they can still engage in a relationship but must inform HR confidentially so they can ensure the subordinate person knows that if they ever feel compromised, we got their back.

Most companies have same or similar policies as many tried to ban work place relationships years ago and realized you cannot. They will just sneak around which makes it worse. better to have it out (even if kept confidential) than to have it hidden with someone in power over the other who feels they cannot 'tell' because the very act of having the relationship was a firing offense.

 

[TheGreatA]

I imagine that people who have a lot of money will always be more paranoid about these things, than the people who have less to lose.

People have realized that this is a moment in time where judgment is being passed on without a trial, and they're doing their best to avoid being among the condemned, the guys who inevitably get thrown under the bus as a a result of such unorganized, chaotic "social movements". There are always a lot of "hustlers" on the move, looking to capitalize on the opportunities made available during times of chaos and irrationality, when the masses have suspended their critical thinking.

The situation will likely normalize, once the moment passes on. But until then, if you're a guy with a lot to lose, it's probably best to stay on your guard.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I imagine that people who have a lot of money will always be more paranoid about these things, than the people who have less to lose.

People have realized that this is a moment in time where judgment is being passed on without a trial, and they're doing their best to avoid being among the condemned, the guys who inevitably get thrown under the bus as a a result of such unorganized, chaotic "social movements". There are always a lot of "hustlers" on the move, looking to capitalize on the opportunities made available during times of chaos and irrationality, when the masses have suspended their critical thinking.

The situation will likely normalize, once the moment passes on. But until then, if you're a guy with a lot to lose, it's probably best to stay on your guard.

for sure. the more you have to lose, if you have money and/or fame, the looser the allegation can be.

In the case of Neil Degrasse Tyson such an incident at a social event between two normal people gets no airing. No one cares including the ladies friends who might just say 'stay away from him if you are not sure whether he meant to creep or not'. it dies there.

It should have died there regardless but because he is famous it gets an airing.

I mean what is she saying there:

- 9 years ago Neil while talking to me about my tattoo touched it and traced it up to my shoulder while asking question
- I am not sure if he meant it to be sexual or creepy but it did creep me out at the time
- however once he was done tracing it and talking to me about he moved on. Talked to other people and never flirted with me in any way or tried anything


MeTOO!

 

[panamaican]

I'm ok with that even if true but he disputes that for the record.

She is not an employee or a student of his. He is not in any position of power over her. Taking an excuse for incidental touching, if your intention is to flirt is what men (and women) look for. And you look to see how the other reacts.

If you have been on dates, you probably remember for times where you are looking for that moment or excuse to break the touch barrier as it is a key escalator in flirtations.

Yeah, and I made sure it was cool before I did it. And my game was phenomenal, I got girls to agree to all sorts of shit.

Which is fine but not everyone is that uptight (again nothing wrong with that).

If someone is showing me a tattoo of something on their arm and i trace it saying 'what is that supposed to be?' i would not see that as offensive. But people are different. I have friends who are far more touchy than me and can make me feel uncomfortable and I often joke with them to back off. Again, people are different.

Remember the Al Frankin gal who thought him putting his hand on her waist during a picture was a metoo moment saying her husband does not even touch her like that. People are different. And while both ladies have every right to say 'I am not comfortable with that', It is not what the metoo movement is for.

That kicks in after you give him that information that you are not comfortable.

See, that's not what personal boundaries are about. You don't touch people without being sure about it. You don't touch someone and then hope that they're okay with it. You determine what their boundaries are before you touch them.

yes context and how the guy reacts when given further information is key.

Before, not after.

I never suggested or meant that flirting in every situation was ok. I maintain that flirting HAS TO BE OK, in that we can never ask men to never flirt or expect them not to unless it is asked for by the woman first.

yes situationaly it matters. A social event and after party where Neil was at is exactly where people tend to flirt.

And yes married people get to flirt to. there is no prohibition on married people flirting. that does not mean the other partner would like it if they see it being done, but humans flirt. Even married ones even if they have no intention to do anything with said flirting.

It's situationally okay to flirt. So situationally, it's not always okay to flirt. And when the other person says that, situationally, it wasn't okay then it wasn't okay. It's not up to the person who wants to flirt to dictate when the other person should be situationally ok with flirting.

For me it comes down to how she responds to it. Putting up legal definitions is silly as any hand touch or kiss on a date executed before the other party asks for it is battery if they tell you they did not want it after.

A silly standard to apply to dating as you would then have to tell all men to simply not risk battery. Never initiate touch or a kiss without knowing first. And sadly that may be where we end up, Can i touch your hand. Can I kiss you now. Can I touch your breast. And some Universities are saying that continuos consent in dating is the standard. Just because she is making out with you does not mean you can touch her breast.

I recognize that a gal who may be making out with you may indeed stop you if you touch her breast. that is not a metoo moment imo. However how you react to her stopping you can be.

I gave you the legal standard to point out a very simple concept that you seem to be struggling with. All of those crimes - battery, theft, trespass - don't give you a chance to get permission after you committed the crime. You ask permission before you act.

This is very straightforward in almost all human interactions. Permission first, action second.

Where you seem have some difficulty is that you don't seem aware that you can accurately ascertain what is acceptable behavior to someone before you do it. You don't have to first touch her breast before you know with certainty that she wants you to touch her tits. You don't have to kiss before you know if she wants to be kissed. However, you do need spend some time talking to and understanding what the other person's personal lines are and adjusting what you say and do to that. Some girls don't mind somethings that other girls don't like. Some girls like aggressive sexual flirting, some girls don't like flirting with anything sexual in it. Know your customer, stop forcing the same product on every customer and then acting surprised when someone sends it back unwanted.

 

[panamaican]

That line gets much more treacherous in a work setting or any setting where one might have power over the other.
That said marriages between people at work are still one of the biggest groupings for who gets married.

Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos cannot simply be right because their women ultimately said yes, but if those same women said no then they were wrong and metoo'able. Again it would come down to how they handled the no that would matter.

Yes, they can be right simply because their women said yes and wrong when a woman says no.

The sexual marketplace is a marketplace. You're offering and they're offering. You're agreeing to terms and they're agreeing to terms. So if you make an offer to one customer and they don't want it, you made the wrong offer. If you make the same offer to a different customer and they do want it, you made the right offer.

These are people, none of them are required to accept the same thing that someone else accepted. "

 

[Fazz]

The points made in the TS wouldn’t be out of place if uttered by the local Imam. Right wing heads will be exploding.

#creepingshariah

 

[MikeMcMann]

Yeah, and I made sure it was cool before I did it. And my game was phenomenal, I got girls to agree to all sorts of shit.



See, that's not what personal boundaries are about. You don't touch people without being sure about it. You don't touch someone and then hope that they're okay with it. You determine what their boundaries are before you touch them.



Before, not after.




It's situationally okay to flirt. So situationally, it's not always okay to flirt. And when the other person says that, situationally, it wasn't okay then it wasn't okay. It's not up to the person who wants to flirt to dictate when the other person should be situationally ok with flirting.



I gave you the legal standard to point out a very simple concept that you seem to be struggling with. All of those crimes - battery, theft, trespass - don't give you a chance to get permission after you committed the crime. You ask permission before you act.

This is very straightforward in almost all human interactions. Permission first, action second.

Where you seem have some difficulty is that you don't seem aware that you can accurately ascertain what is acceptable behavior to someone before you do it. You don't have to first touch her breast before you know with certainty that she wants you to touch her tits. You don't have to kiss before you know if she wants to be kissed. However, you do need spend some time talking to and understanding what the other person's personal lines are and adjusting what you say and do to that. Some girls don't mind somethings that other girls don't like. Some girls like aggressive sexual flirting, some girls don't like flirting with anything sexual in it. Know your customer, stop forcing the same product on every customer and then acting surprised when someone sends it back unwanted.

We don't agree on much here.

If you had to ask first then you had no game imo. If you did not ask and assumed based on signals or other then you took a risk as you could be wrong. Guys are often wrong despite thinking they had clear signals. If you are going to say you could never be wrong, you were just that good then we can stop talking now.

So you touched, taking a risk without actually knowing unless you asked first.

Flirting as a basis premise is ALWAYS ok. Saying it is situational does not change the former as a general statement. And no, if another person says that flirting was not desired that does not mean it was not ok for the person to try. You are wrong there.

If Neil was trying to hit on that lady, and she told him it was undesired and unwanted and he apologized and moved on, he was not wrong to try. it is a problem to assume, as you are doing that her desire for it is what determines right or wrong.

And permission first will NEVER be the standard in dating. You are 100% wrong historically in the vast VAST majority of cases. 99.9999% of cases guys proceeded without permission and acted on feelings and instinct while watching how the girl reacted to most advances. So the legal standard being used here is completely inappropriate and wrong and explaining why it is necessary for legal does not change that.

You are just factually wrong if you think it even approaches 1 in a million guys who ask first 'can i touch your hand or lower back now', 'can i kiss you now' before just trying. And if you will say those 999,999 men were all wrong but just got away with it then we can agree to disagree as I do not see it as wrong.

Men not only are EXPECTED to be the one offering or making the move in the sexual market place but often chastized if they wont. Women have the right to say no and expect a level of respect after doing so.

That is the normal expected dynamic. Trying to require the man to mind read prior and not make unwanted advances and saying he is wrong if it turns out it was unwanted is just silly.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Yes, they can be right simply because their women said yes and wrong when a woman says no.

The sexual marketplace is a marketplace. You're offering and they're offering. You're agreeing to terms and they're agreeing to terms. So if you make an offer to one customer and they don't want it, you made the wrong offer. If you make the same offer to a different customer and they do want it, you made the right offer.

These are people, none of them are required to accept the same thing that someone else accepted. "

There is a logical fallacy commonly talked about in poker called "results based thinking'. You suffer from it. The exact same action to the exact same person cannot be judged wrong or right based on whether the person wants it or not.

Senario 1 :

Bill Gates : Hi, I find you interesting and would like to go on a date if you are interested, even though I am your boss.

Her : I would love that.

Conclusion : Bill was right to ask and did nothing inappropriate

Scenario 2 :

Bill Gates : Hi, I find you interesting and would like to go on a date if you are interested, even though I am your boss.

Her : I am sorry but i am not interest but thx. .

Conclusion : Bill was wrong to ask and acted inappropriate

------------

that cannot be the standard and he does not deserve to be metoo'd for the latter while recognized for his success in the former.

 

[panamaican]

We don't agree on much here.

If you had to ask first then you had no game imo. If you did not ask and assumed based on signals or other then you took a risk as you could be wrong. Guys are often wrong despite thinking they had clear signals. If you are going to say you could never be wrong, you were just that good then we can stop talking now.

So you touched, taking a risk without actually knowing unless you asked first.

Flirting as a basis premise is ALWAYS ok. Saying it is situational does not change the former as a general statement. And no, if another person says that flirting was not desired that does not mean it was not ok for the person to try. You are wrong there.

If Neil was trying to hit on that lady, and she told him it was undesired and unwanted and he apologized and moved on, he was not wrong to try. it is a problem to assume, as you are doing that her desire for it is what determines right or wrong.

And permission first will NEVER be the standard in dating. You are 100% wrong historically in the vast VAST majority of cases. 99.9999% of cases guys proceeded without permission and acted on feelings and instinct while watching how the girl reacted to most advances. So the legal standard being used here is completely inappropriate and wrong and explaining why it is necessary for legal does not change that.

You are just factually wrong if you think it even approaches 1 in a million guys who ask first 'can i touch your hand or lower back now', 'can i kiss you now' before just trying. And if you will say those 999,999 men were all wrong but just got away with it then we can agree to disagree as I do not see it as wrong.

Men not only are EXPECTED to be the one offering or making the move in the sexual market place but often chastized if they wont. Women have the right to say no and expect a level of respect after doing so.

That is the normal expected dynamic. Trying to require the man to mind read prior and not make unwanted advances and saying he is wrong if it turns out it was unwanted is just silly.

I never said I had to ask but I always made sure. I never acted without knowing. There are plenty of ways to get certainty without having to forthright ask. And sure there were times I was wrong about what someone wanted (we've all been turned down at some point) but I didn't touch someone first to find out. And I didn't escalate the conversation into a sexual space without being sure.

Of course, guys make the first move most of the time. Yes, women expect it. Now think that through. If women expect you to make the first move then do you think women might have a way of letting you know when they want you to do so? Of course they do, they don't expect you to guess. The only real question is if the guy is patient enough and attentive enough to wait for that signal or if they rush ahead without it.

We keep coming back to the very basic concept - do not touch someone until you know that they are okay with being touched.

Do you agree with that basic concept or not?

 

[DragRacer]

Ok. I was responding to you saying that women should “ should be treated like colleagues and not just future bed partners” when sometimes they’re both.

The fact of the matter is that the dynamic is never going to be 100% the same between men and women because there’s the possibility of fucking taking place in the future, and it’s usually up to the male to initiate and figure it out.

That “test the waters” grey area could almost always be misconstrued as sexual harassment by an overly sensitive female or by a cunt looking to #metoo herself into a settlement so she doesn’t have to work anymore.

Fairly irrelevant to the question of sexual harassment within the workplace. A pretty big distinction being the concept of "consensually". In abridged form, that means that both the man and the woman want the behavior. Harassment is when one person does not want the behavior.

See, that's why some guys should probably just avoid women until they can intelligently understand the difference between mutually desired behavior and unilateral desired behavior.

Thank you for inadvertently making my point.

 

[panamaican]

There is a logical fallacy commonly talked about in poker called "results based thinking'. You suffer from it. The exact same action to the exact same person cannot be judged wrong or right based on whether the person wants it or not.

Senario 1 :

Bill Gates : Hi, I find you interesting and would like to go on a date if you are interested, even though I am your boss.

Her : I would love that.

Conclusion : Bill was right to ask and did nothing inappropriate

Scenario 2 :

Bill Gates : Hi, I find you interesting and would like to go on a date if you are interested, even though I am your boss.

Her : I am sorry but i am not interest but thx. .

Conclusion : Bill was wrong to ask and acted inappropriate

------------

that cannot be the standard and he does not deserve to be metoo'd for the latter while recognized for his success in the former.

Sounds like you don't understand people. The law has principle here called the "Eggshell plaintiff". In short, it says the unexpected frailty of the victim isn't a defense to liability. This means that just because the person you harmed is more susceptible to being hurt than your average person, you can't minimize your penalty based on that. You take them as you find them.

So, the "eggshell plaintiff" rule says exactly what you're arguing against. It says your action is wrong if it harms the person complaining, even if it wouldn't have harmed most people. That's the standard. There is no defense of "It wouldn't have been a problem if I did it to someone else." Because the response is "But you didn't do it to someone else - you did it to that person."

Also, you have applied your fallacy incorrectly. The basic rule is "Don't touch people without knowing that they want to be touched." If Bill Gates breaks the rule and doesn't get #metoo'd, he still broke the rule. Just because he didn't suffer a negative consequence doesn't change that. The only thing that changes is whether or not the other person is going to enforce the rule against Gates. And that's a person by person risk.

Which is how we end up back at the "Eggshell Plaintiff". Bill Gates breaks the rule. He's wrong. It's not a defense to say "Yeah but someone else wouldn't have complained."

The rules themselves are pretty simple:
1) Don't touch people if they don't want to be touched.
2) Don't introduce sexuality into the work environment.
3) Keep your professional dealings strictly professional.

You can break the rules and risk an Eggshell Plaintiff. Or you can follow the rules. Everyone gets to make that choice.

 

[cincymma79]

It's not "your line" vs. "what's acceptable to others."

It's "your line" vs. "the consequences of enforcing your line."

Girl hangs on my shoulder at work
Someone else sees it
Metoo
I suppose I can kick her in the pussy and then piss on her but hat seems extreme

Or she touches you
You respond somehow
She says metoo

 

[glenwo2]

That “test the waters” grey area could almost always be misconstrued as sexual harassment by an overly sensitive female or by a cunt looking to #metoo herself into a settlement so she doesn’t have to work anymore.

And that is why men are staying away from Women altogether and either using Porn or going overseas to find a wife. With all this absurd power Women have, it's no wonder Men want to protect themselves.

 

[panamaican]

Ok. I was responding to you saying that women should “ should be treated like colleagues and not just future bed partners” when sometimes they’re both.

The fact of the matter is that the dynamic is never going to be 100% the same between men and women because there’s the possibility of fucking taking place in the future, and it’s usually up to the male to initiate and figure it out.

That “test the waters” grey area could almost always be misconstrued as sexual harassment by an overly sensitive female or by a cunt looking to #metoo herself into a settlement so she doesn’t have to work anymore.

Then don't "test the waters" at work. I cannot fathom how that basic point seems so contentious. Don't fuck your co-workers. Don't fuck your best friend's girl. Don't test the waters.

Seriously, if your best mate had a smoking hot gf, would you "test the waters" and then explain yourself as "Well, you never know she might have been interested. " You don't try and fuck your best friend's girl just because you see her alot. Every dude learns that you don't do it. And guys who try it anyway, usually don't get any sympathy if they fail.

Yet guys can't apply that rule to their female colleagues?

 

[JonesBones]

Muslims had it right all along. You laughed at them. You people with your Western Civilization thought you were so smart.

 

[panamaican]

Girl hangs on my shoulder at work
Someone else sees it
Metoo
I suppose I can kick her in the pussy and then piss on her but hat seems extreme

Or she touches you
You respond somehow
She says metoo

In your first scenario, she's saying MeToo after hanging on your shoulder?

In your second scenario, she touches you at work without provocation and you respond how? You pat her on the head? You remove her hand from touching you? You grab a tit and lick her neck?

If you're going to make up scenarios, they need a little more meat before we can debate them. I'm starting to think that these aren't examples of things that actually happen.

 

[bushman505]

See, can't answer basic questions for fear of being wrong...Like a woman.

Woman hating (and racist) homosexual confirmed.

You realize you’ve made like a dozen posts denigrating women....you know who else does that??? Gay people. I’ll look forward to your deflection.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I never said I had to ask but I always made sure. I never acted without knowing...

I'll reply to the rest after but start here.

You never asked.

So ok you assumed based on the signals and available info/feedback you felt you were getting. Is that right?

If correct, do you believe you are infallible when it comes to women and could never misread a woman's desire or intent?

(sorry but absolute clarity is needed here before i go on)