Rubbish Foxy. I think you're being intellectually dishonest.

Few women ask men out, even these days, let alone when the laws were introduced. So the law was made, at the time, in order to regulate men's behaviour and protect women, even if it supposedly applies to all these days.

We regulate unwanted propositions, but we don't regulate nasty rejections. The law is based on womans feelings on how they are propositioned. Would you support a new law based on mens feelings about how they are rejected in response to a proposition?

Can you imagine ANY law being introduced that is motivated by the desire to protect mens feelings?

Houlley you are being disingenuous. Lets first agree that there is some obvious behaviour that would be rationally perceived as sexual harassment such as groping, grabbing breasts that blind freddy would deem as inappropriate.

The approach is not the problem even under the law - it is continual unwanted attention. Don't be naive. We all know why the law came about and we have to have some faith and an expectation that the enforcement of the law will be carried out on rational grounds. Gosh, you can't even get a burglary case to trial sometimes unless all the boxes are ticked.

Do you really think a lawyer is going to argue a case on one attempted approach to a woman in the worforce that was 'unwanted'. Of course they aren't. It is continued attention of a sexual nature after there have been protestations and a continuation of the activity.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this legislation. Men are equally protected and there have been cases involving male complainants.

It is all very well to play devil's advocate but sometimes you have to take the commonsense approach and not put forward a 'worst possible' scenario as the norm (legally speaking).

pelican,

'Lets first agree that there is some obvious behaviour that would be rationally perceived as sexual harassment such as groping, grabbing breasts that blind freddy would deem as inappropriate. '

Never been in dispute, no matter how much Foxy tries to misrepresent my argument.

'we have to have some faith and an expectation that the enforcement of the law will be carried out on rational grounds.'

You have to have a hell of a lot of faith when the law is based on 'feelings'.

'Do you really think a lawyer is going to argue a case on one attempted approach to a woman in the worforce that was 'unwanted'.'

I relay that request to Transki. She says, 'it is up to the person making the sexual advance to fully know BEFOREHAND whether or not sexual behaviour would be welcome by the other person in the workplace'

Nobody has refuted this assertion, and nobody has touched my question about regulating female rejections in the workplace. Would you support a new law based on mens feelings about how they are rejected in response to a proposition in the workplace?

'You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this legislation. Men are equally protected and there have been cases involving male complainants.'

I know it's not common for mens feelings to be considered, but 'a mountain out of a molehill'? Yes, men are equally protected under laws that have little relevance to most men. I envisage women would be equally protected by my proposed laws against rude, humiliating, degrading and deliberately indiscreet rejections.

Under my laws, if a woman flirted with a guy, and the guy yelled 'In your dreams you ugly mole', and then laughed about it to his co-workers, he would be just as liable as if a woman had done it.

Dear Houellie,

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

But it's understandable in your case. The law
can be complex, confusing, unfair or just not
known. It's constantly changing, sometimes in
major ways that you may read about but more
often in numerous minor ways that may come as
a surprise if you find you need to deal with it.

If you're really interested in the law, be it
criminal, civil, or the wide range of the areas
of the law as it applies to men in Australia -
may I suggest that you spend some time at your
local library. Each Reference Department has a
major work called, "The Law Handbook," which you'll
be able to peruse at your leisure. Most libraries
will have the latest edition and the book is a practical
guide to the law of the state. The book is published
every year in order to provide an up-to-date summary
of law of most interest to the general public.

I'm sure that you'll be able to find specific laws
that have been enacted to protect men.

The following website may also be of some interest to
you:

http://www.gaylawsnet.com/laws/au_fed.htm

cont'd ...

My apologies, I typed the website incorrectly,
here it is again:

http://www.gaylawnet.com/laws/au_fed.htm

Sorry Foxy, your link doesn't work. I am not sure how gay laws would apply. I suppose I mean laws that are there to protect men... from women.

The sexual harassment laws were designed to protect women from being intimidated, or having their feelings hurt by men. Are there any was protecting men from being intimidated by women or having their feelings hurt?

I note that you, like pelican, look to trivialise men who may have been bullied by women in the workplace. I would never look to trivialise a woman who was bullied by men in the workplace.

One day your son or nephew or young man you care about may be the subject of a heartless and cruel campaign by a group of female employees who decide to ridicule and humiliate him based on the revelation of his heart felt attraction. I wouldn't be surprised, given his arguments about looks, if benk hasn't been victim of such a degrading experience.

Do men not have feelings? Are they worth nothing? Strong men also cry. Strong men... also cry.