- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,651
- Reaction score
- 5
I'm ok with that even if true but he disputes that for the record.That's not the allegation. The allegation is that he traced the tattoo even under the edge of her clothing with his finger.
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.
Which is fine but not everyone is that uptight (again nothing wrong with that).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.
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.
yes context and how the guy reacts when given further information is key.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.
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.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.
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.