'We are either P*ck teasers or a cold heartless b*tch as well.'

But there's no laws criminalising being a prick tease or heatless bitch. There are only laws against being a lech.

My point is the criminalising of men getting it wrong. If a man just so much as 'feels' a woman is cold to him, it doesn't make her a bitch according to the law. But, if a woman 'feels' harassed, she is harassed, and the man is breaking the law.

Cant you understand the broader point I am making about the regulation of mens behaviour by law for the purpose of saving women's feelings that only goes one way?

There is no responsibility for women to ever regulate their behaviour. There is a woman at work who wears see through linen dresses with black lingerie. SO see through you can see all her tatoos. If a guy said that made him feel uncomfortable, she wouldn't be facing the sack or a law suit no matter whether she was his superior or not. The law discriminates against the historical dating etiquette of men making the first move and women sending signals. It's a game stacked against the men in the workplace.

You no doubt think it's stacked against the women based on this power differential. But the only way to eradicate it is for the women to BE assertive, to say NO, loudly, to take responsibility for teasing and being a bitch as men have to for being a lech. Otherwise we are enshrining in law the passivity of women, and sentencing them to be victims under paternalistic protection.

Hmmm, well men have been harassing women over sex since time began.
It is a case of balance, and it can be difficult to read the signals.

It can be a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.
It does seem in this politically correct era that some women are over
sensitive. Perhaps they should get some advice from their grandmothers.

As have women been harassing men...

http://flimmr.passagen.se/movie/beavis_and_butthead_sexual_harassment.action

Houellebecq, you are factually wrong!

You wrote "But, if a woman 'feels' harassed, she is harassed, and the man is breaking the law".

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Under law, she is ONLY harassed if she IS harassed.

If a person 'feels' robbed, but isn't, then nobody has broken any law. If a person 'feels' they were shot, but weren't, then nobody has broken any law. If a person 'feels' a taxi arrived late, but it didn't, then the taxi driver did no wrong as he arrived on time.

Therefore, your claim that "if a woman 'feels' harassed, she is harassed, and the man is breaking the law" is pure SPIN SPIN SPIN. Nice 'agenda' there Houelly. Chuckle, chuckle!

Dear Houellie,

I think that most people know what's appropriate
behaviour at work, and what isn't, and where to
draw the line. What is being discussed here is
the behaviour of those people who are
indulging in uninvited and unwanted sexual advances,
ranging from bottom-patting, squeezing, pinching,
inappropriate attempts at touching, to outright
propositions accompanied by the implied or
explicit threat of dismissal.
This kind of harassment is a common and serious
problem for some at work.

Yet, you're suggesting, as I understand it, that
this kind of interaction requires comparatively
little self-control by the men, instead, it is
the women who are expected to manage the situation,
even though they did not instigate it.

Women have said "NO!" emphatically, they've complained
to Department Heads, and sexual harassment in the
workplace is now illegal - and since corporate and
other employers may now be held responsible for their
employees' conduct - may well be curtailed in the
future. That appears to be what the Fraser-Kirk
case is trying to achieve - with David Jones.

What is the matter with outright propositioning, You are allowed to ask.
The thing to do is to take the reply as yes or no and nothing in between. Maybe such answers could be worn around your neck, on a lanyard, then again positioning could be a problem.
How can so many women be wrong, this bloke has surely got a problem, playing with himself in front of woman without asking. Didn't he ever learn that was to be done in privacy.
If 15 or so people come forward, there will be another 500 oe more who won't. I hope this bloke gets what he deserves and the DJ company have to pay the full 35 mill. Maybe it will clean the system up, and women can have a job without being harassed for sexual favours with out permission.