Houllie

No-one is going to get into legal trouble after one approach. However, sexual harassment is largely governed by social pressure. I've seen plenty of women act as though one approach has caused them a great deal of pain. Before you know it, she has a support crew ganging up on this terrible man. Now you want the right for him to play the victim as well. There is enough manufactured drama at workplaces already. Lets keep these rules for more major offences.

Pelican

"The approach is not the problem even under the law - it is continual unwanted attention."

The word "continual" is a problem. As Houllie said, men are still expected to make an effort, over a period of time. Unwanted is also a problem, as we (like women) are never exactly sure what the other person is thinking.

Houllie

>>> 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. <<<

There are men who do this. And there are laws, inadequate for victims of either sex, but there exist laws against this type of bullying, provided the victim can prove it.

Tell me is this isn't an example of male judgement of females' appearance, courtesy of your adored Antiseptic:

>>> I may think you're a fat old cow not worth the trouble of chatting up, while the bloke at the next desk may have a "thing" for fat old cows and think your moustache is really hot stuff. It's all subjective.<<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3976&page=0#98766

I can easily imagine Antiseptic laughing to his mates about a woman who had the temerity to ask him out.

And women DO ask men out, I have and do. I agree it takes courage. But I don't see a refusal as an excuse to then harass someone.

The only truth in Anti's statement was: "It's all subjective".

Propositioning becomes harassment when the rejected person cannot take no for an answer and persists despite being asked to desist.

Dear Houellie,

My link does work - try again.
I've given it twice - the first
was a typo, the second one's the
correct one.

Your concern for people's feelings
has me somewhat confused as you've
stated in the past that empathy
wasn't your "thing." And also if
you're so concerned about how someone
feels - you have a funny way of showing
it. Like accusing me of "intellectual
dishonesty," and calling my opinion
"rubbish." Or is it only the feelings
of men that concerns you?

All this makes me think that again, you're
simply stirring for your own "entertainment,"
which is after all what you've said the Forum
is to you. You almost had me at "stong men do
cry," until you repeated it for emphasis.

Good one Houellie!
Keep it up!

You're right Foxy, Houllie is being a total...stirrer!
Any of us bright people know what you (we) are alluding to Foxy :)

At the end of the day, the law agrees with us, and that's all we need to know!
See you on another thread.

Cheers,
Suze.

How is the form of Kristy Fraser-Kirk? She wanted to make a statement regarding sexual harassment (FAIR ENOUGH). She claimed the money if awarded would be given to charity!

Oh Dear.....today she has said the $850,000 awarded out of court will NOT go to charity but WILL stay with her..... Does 'GOLD DIGGER' ring a bell?

Disgraceful.................

Ballina, you've got it all wrong. She deserves it because women in Bangladesh exist.

Or something like that.