Attention Moniker & Beastie

[_Some Schmo]

You've changed your words from the original. In your original post you didn't mention "abusive sexual advances...emphasis on abusive. So that's a relative term..just what is abusive? What is sexually abusive to one person may not be to another.

I mentioned sexual harassment, which I consider a form of sexual abuse.

We are dealing essentially with words on a screen. As adults we can choose to ignore anyone who contacts us privately and there is no requirement to respond and engage anyone off the board.

We have to appreciate that we project an image of ourselves through what we write. If lots of people tend to respond to us in a certain manner which we do not like or it offends us, we can assume the problem lies with them (and that may very well be the case) or we can also assume it is partly or wholly our fault for the perceptions they have.

Obviously, we project an image of ourselves. All I'm trying to communicate to you, marg, is that I, for one, don't share your perception of Moniker. In fact, your post seemed like it was out of left field, and that was quite shocking to me given that I usually think you're posts show a lot insight.

But I have a lot of experience dealing with promiscuous and sexually overt women, and the idea that Moniker comes off that way is, frankly, unbelievable to me. I'll admit that I haven't read everything she's ever written (she's posted a lot), but it's just not a feeling I get from her. She seems to acknowledge and embrace her sexuality, not repress it, and she can talk about it without becoming uncomfortable. I imagine to Mormons, that may seem slutty; I don't know. To me, it sounds healthy.

And that, itself, is really irrelevant anyway. Even if I did think she was being sexually inviting, I wouldn't seek her out as a target for harassment. If I did, that would be a reflection of the kind of person I am, not her. Being open about your sexuality is not and invitation for sexual advances. Thinking that is what's unhealthy.

I admit that when I first read beastie's thread sometime in the last year about (ex)Mormon men, I thought it was an unfair generalization. Now I'm not so sure. There definitely is something to be said for the sexual repression fostered by the church. I think it affects different men in different ways, but it is what it is.

Is a rape victim at fault if the rapist found her attractive? What if lots of people found her attractive? Is it her fault she was widely perceived as attractive? I mean, come on.

[_marg]

You've changed your words from the original. In your original post you didn't mention "abusive sexual advances...emphasis on abusive. So that's a relative term..just what is abusive? What is sexually abusive to one person may not be to another.

I mentioned sexual harassment, which I consider a form of sexual abuse.

Right and as I pointed out I haven't seen it on the board and you've not given an example on the board.

We, you and I are arguuing for what might or might not have occurred in private conversations which we are not privy to, unless sent information. My comments over the last year on this issue in which on a few occasion I would blame Moniker for her naïvété in this matter were based solely on her postings on the board. I knew of absolutely nothing other than what was on the board.

So my perceptions differ to yours and apparently my perceptions are in line somewhat with what she has been experiencing as far as reactions from others.

Obviously, we project an image of ourselves. All I'm trying to communicate to you, marg, is that I, for one, don't share your perception of Moniker. In fact, your post seemed like it was out of left field, and that was quite shocking to me given that I usually think you're posts show a lot insight.

And I appreciate you don't share my perception that Moniker is responsible for much of the reactions she says she has gotten.

But I have a lot of experience dealing with promiscuous and sexually overt women, and the idea that Moniker comes off that way is, frankly, unbelievable to me. I'll admit that I haven't read everything she's ever written (she's posted a lot), but it's just not a feeling I get from her. She seems to acknowledge and embrace her sexuality, not repress it, and she can talk about it without becoming uncomfortable. I imagine to Mormons, that may seem slutty; I don't know. To me, it sounds healthy.

No where have I made a judgement call and said sexuality should be repressed. What I have said was that Moniker has projected an image of wanting male attention and of being sexually liberal. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that a male might proposition her.

And that, itself, is really irrelevant anyway. Even if I did think she was being sexually inviting, I wouldn't seek her out as a target for harassment. If I did, that would be a reflection of the kind of person I am, not her. Being open about your sexuality is not and invitation for sexual advances. Thinking that is what's unhealthy.

Well actually if you really want to be open about sexuality then there is nothing wrong with a male or a female sexually propositioning another. No one is forced to take them up on it. If rejected and they continue then they are harassing.

I admit that when I first read beastie's thread sometime in the last year about (ex)Mormon men, I thought it was an unfair generalization. Now I'm not so sure. There definitely is something to be said for the sexual repression fostered by the church. I think it affects different men in different ways, but it is what it is.

While it is quite possible that a culture represses sexuality and it affects how individuals treat sex, I do not see men on this board sexually harassing women, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions that Mormon or exmormon men are much different than the greater society on this issue.

Is a rape victim at fault if the rapist found her attractive? What if lots of people found her attractive? Is it her fault she was widely perceived as attractive? I mean, come on.

You are making a slippery slope argument. Do you really think a male or female propositioning someone who has made it very clear they highly enjoy sex..is akin to rape?

[_Some Schmo]

Right and as I pointed out I haven't seen it on the board and you've not given an example on the board.

We, you and I are arguuing for what might or might not have occurred in private conversations which we are not privy to, unless sent information. My comments over the last year on this issue in which on a few occasion I would blame Moniker for her naïvété in this matter were based solely on her postings on the board. I knew of absolutely nothing other than what was on the board.

So my perceptions differ to yours and apparently my perceptions are in line somewhat with what she has been experiencing as far as reactions from others.

You're right; I don't know what (or if) anything has really transpired behind the scenes. I'm not claiming it has. I'm saying that if it has, the problem lies with the harasser, not the harassed.

And I appreciate you don't share my perception that Moniker is responsible for much of the reactions she says she has gotten.

Here's the problem with this statement, marg (and what seems to be your general argument here): Moniker cannot control how people react to her. Therefore, she is not responsible for other people's reactions. Each of us is responsible for how we, as individuals, act and react. To blame someone else for your own reactions to them is known as a character disorder.

And I will acknowledge here that perhaps Moniker has over reacted to what others have said to her in private and is responsible for her own hard feelings. And perhaps the way she's handling it is how she's acting on that responsibility. I just don't know. I'm only commenting on what has been made public.

No where have I made a judgement call and said sexuality should be repressed. What I have said was that Moniker has projected an image of wanting male attention and of being sexually liberal. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that a male might proposition her.

You may not be surprised by it (given your perception of her posting style), but that still doesn't make her responsible for how others react.

And I'm male (and I'd like to think pretty attuned to female desires). I also happen to enjoy many of Mon's posts. I suppose that's makes me biased, but I would think if anything, I'd be one to think she's wanting attention from someone like me, given my admiration. I wonder why that never occurred to me.

Well actually if you really want to be open about sexuality then there is nothing wrong with a male or a female sexually propositioning another. No one is forced to take them up on it. If rejected and they continue then they are harassing.

That's true. And since we don't know the details, we can't comment on it, can we?

While it is quite possible that a culture represses sexuality and it affects how individuals treat sex, I do not see men on this board sexually harassing women, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions that Mormon or exmormon men are much different than the greater society on this issue.

Well, not openly, anyway.

I'm pretty reserved about jumping to that conclusion myself, as I implied in my last post. However, this sort of thing wouldn't be the first instance of weirdness in DAMU male behavior toward women. Whether it's actually related to their Mormon past or not is entirely debatable.

Is a rape victim at fault if the rapist found her attractive? What if lots of people found her attractive? Is it her fault she was widely perceived as attractive? I mean, come on.

You are making a slippery slope argument. Do you really think a male or female propositioning someone who has made it very clear they highly enjoy sex..is akin to rape?

No, of course not (and you have to know that isn't what I was arguing at all). What I do think is that excusing sexual harassment because "someone has made it very clear they highly enjoy sex" is the same as excusing rape because someone dresses provocatively or is perceived as attractive by many. Both cases remove the ultimate responsibility from the aggressor and put it on the victim, and in both cases, that's wrong (not to mention entirely insulting).

[_marg]

You're right; I don't know what (or if) anything has really transpired behind the scenes. I'm not claiming it has. I'm saying that if it has, the problem lies with the harasser, not the harassed.

Frist you have to define harrassment and what you are referring Old Testament and what is and what isn't acceptable and why.

And I appreciate you don't share my perception that Moniker is responsible for much of the reactions she says she has gotten.

Here's the problem with this statement, marg (and what seems to be your general argument here): Moniker cannot control how people react to her. Therefore, she is not responsible for other people's reactions. Each of us is responsible for how we, as individuals, act and react. To blame someone else for your own reactions to them is known as a character disorder.

I'm not complaining about anything Schmo, I'm addressing Moniker's complaints. Moniker doesn't control people's perception of her but she does influence it by behaviors. To the extent that anyone influences other's behaviors, they should take responsibility for that.

And I will acknowledge here that perhaps Moniker has over reacted to what others have said to her in private and is responsible for her own hard feelings. And perhaps the way she's handling it is how she's acting on that responsibility. I just don't know. I'm only commenting on what has been made public.

Over the last year I have commented to Moniker on a number of occasions and criticized her naïvété, and my perception was based solely on board posting. I link to a discussion in the opening post above in which I had a conversation with Beastie and her on this.

No where have I made a judgement call and said sexuality should be repressed. What I have said was that Moniker has projected an image of wanting male attention and of being sexually liberal. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that a male might proposition her.

You may not be surprised by it (given your perception of her posting style), but that still doesn't make her responsible for how others react.

Once again Schmo I'm not the one complaining. I'm acknowledging that her posting style was instrumental in getting a reaction that she found offensive. To that extent she shares responsibility in people's perception and reaction.

And I'm male (and I'd like to think pretty attuned to female desires).

Yes I read you've been called a metrosexual by coworkers.

I also happen to enjoy many of Mon's posts. I suppose that's makes me biased, but I would think if anything, I'd be one to think she's wanting attention from someone like me, given my admiration. I wonder why that never occurred to me.

Schmo are you the type to ever proposition any other woman than your wife? Some people (men or women) are not that way inclined.

You are making a slippery slope argument. Do you really think a male or female propositioning someone who has made it very clear they highly enjoy sex..is akin to rape?

No, of course not (and you have to know that isn't what I was arguing at all). What I do think is that excusing sexual harassment because "someone has made it very clear they highly enjoy sex" is the same as excusing rape because someone dresses provocatively or is perceived as attractive by many. Both cases remove the ultimate responsibility from the aggressor and put it on the victim, and in both cases, that's wrong (not to mention entirely insulting).

The problem in our discussion is that you haven't defined what would entail abusive harrassment in private messages. At issue here is not sexual harrassment on the board because you haven't said there is any.

I have been talking about men and it could be women too, sexually propositioning. I certainly don't think that comes close to raping.
I also don't look upon sexual propositions as inappropriate in the context/environment of an internet message boards..if there is strong evidence an individual has given out sexual cues of interest generally.

[_Ray A]

No, of course not (and you have to know that isn't what I was arguing at all). What I do think is that excusing sexual harassment because "someone has made it very clear they highly enjoy sex" is the same as excusing rape because someone dresses provocatively or is perceived as attractive by many. Both cases remove the ultimate responsibility from the aggressor and put it on the victim, and in both cases, that's wrong (not to mention entirely insulting).

Perhaps this speech delivered by Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, a Muslim Imam in Australia, delivered on October 26, 2006, is a good example:

"Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast?

"Where will they end up? In hell. And not part-time. For eternity. They are the worst in God's creation.

"Who commits the crimes of theft? The man or the woman? The man. That's why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft because his responsibility is providing.

"But when it comes to adultery, it's 90 per cent the women's responsibility. Why? Because a woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It's she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then it's a look, then a smile, then a conversation, a greeting, then a conversation, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. (laughs).

"Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.

"But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: 'If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.' Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it."

"If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you're crazy. Isn't this true?

"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.

"If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it.

"If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it's no use.

"If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she's wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don't happen.

"That's why he said she owns the weapon of seduction.

"Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You're my messenger to achieve my needs. Satan tells women you're my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you're the best of my weapons.

"The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.

Most of you won't understand the reference to the "65 years". This was in reponse to the jailing of a young Muslim ringleader, Bilal Skaff, of a gang who committed a series of rapes on young women in Sydney's West. The Sheik is actually justifying this!! Why? Because the women "brought it on" by their "western dress" and open lifestyles. Many Muslim men think they are "whores", and "asking for it". The judge handed down this sentence, which no murderer would ever get, because he felt that society needed to learn how skewed this kind of thinking is.

[_Some Schmo]

Frist you have to define harrassment and what you are referring Old Testament and what is and what isn't acceptable and why.

It has been established, actually (see where I agreed with you what harassment was above), and again, is irrelevant to my point. Not sure why you refuse to acknowledge that.

I'm not complaining about anything Schmo, I'm addressing Moniker's complaints. Moniker doesn't control people's perception of her but she does influence it by behaviors. To the extent that anyone influences other's behaviors, they should take responsibility for that.

I didn't say you were complaining, I said you were wrong to say Moniker is responsible for for how men react to her. That's complete BS. Influencing is not the same as being responsible. All she can do is acknowledge whatever part she might play in it. Obviously, you think she should acknowledge more than she thinks she should, but she doesn't, and I haven't seen anything to make me believe she should either. And by the way, acknowledging your own influence does not make you responsible for how others react to your influence, in case you felt like going down that road.

Over the last year I have commented to Moniker on a number of occasions and criticized her naïveté, and my perception was based solely on board posting. I link to a discussion in the opening post above in which I had a conversation with Beastie and her on this.

And your perception counts as evidence? Doesn't seem any more valid than my own.

Once again Schmo I'm not the one complaining. I'm acknowledging that her posting style was instrumental in getting a reaction that she found offensive. To that extent she shares responsibility in people's perception and reaction.

Well, then you seem to have a warped sense of personal responsibility, and only you can help you with that. Children think "he/she made me do it." Adults take responsibility for their own actions.

I also happen to enjoy many of Mon's posts. I suppose that's makes me biased, but I would think if anything, I'd be one to think she's wanting attention from someone like me, given my admiration. I wonder why that never occurred to me.

Schmo are you the type to ever proposition any other woman than your wife? Some people (men or women) are not that way inclined.

Proposition? No. Flirt? Perhaps sometimes. Do I think about it? Again, sometimes, but I'd never betray my wife.

Not sure how that's relevant to whether I think Moniker be open to it or not.

I have been talking about men and it could be women too, sexually propositioning. I certainly don't think that comes close to raping.
I also don't look upon sexual propositions as inappropriate in the context/environment of an internet message boards..if there is strong evidence an individual has given out sexual cues of interest generally.

Well, then, it must be's fault! All the men are innocent, because she invited it! Of course, that assumes you know the full extent of the advances and that you are bang on correct about Moniker's "cues..."

I hate it when it gets to the point in a conversation when it seems like the person you're talking to is more intent on making an argument than acknowledging a point, and I think we've just crossed that line. It's like you couldn't care less what I'm saying and are actively ignoring it. If you don't care, that's perfectly ok. Just don't pretend you do.

On the off chance you do care, the parallel is not about the severity of the act. Quit being distracted by that for just a second and try to focus on what the point really is. It's the location of responsibility, not how badly someone was harmed.

And as we've both established here, we don't know if any lines were crossed. You keep acting like you know the extent to which men made advances to Moniker, and yet, if they were private, you have no way of knowing. The fact is, it appears that you are trying to diminish any feelings Mon has about all this, dismissing any severity she may have suffered simply because you perceive her as a flirt. Well, that's offensive, insensitive, and doesn't look good on you.

Come on, marg. I know you're smarter than this.

I don't know that I can make it any clearer than that.

[_marg]

Frist you have to define harrassment and what you are referring Old Testament and what is and what isn't acceptable and why.

It has been established, actually (see where I agreed with you what harassment was above), and again, is irrelevant to my point. Not sure why you refuse to acknowledge that.

Before I address the rest of your post, humor me and define what you consider sexual harrassment to be on a message board, in private, in public. I looked above and I don't see it.

[_marg]

Frist you have to define harrassment and what you are referring Old Testament and what is and what isn't acceptable and why.

It has been established, actually (see where I agreed with you what harassment was above), and again, is irrelevant to my point. Not sure why you refuse to acknowledge that.

I've asked you to define it because it appears to me you are treating propositioning another in private as sexual harrassment which you consider wrong and that such a person needs counseling. I believe that is your position. So I want to make sure I understand clearly what it is you consider to be wrong.

I didn't say you were complaining, I said you were wrong to say Moniker is responsible for for how men react to her. That's complete BS. Influencing is not the same as being responsible. All she can do is acknowledge whatever part she might play in it. Obviously, you think she should acknowledge more than she thinks she should, but she doesn't, and I haven't seen anything to make me believe she should either. And by the way, acknowledging your own influence does not make you responsible for how others react to your influence, in case you felt like going down that road.

Here are quotes of what I wrote in a thread in May 2008 which I linked to in the opening post.

I'm going to give it to you straight up. You post provocative avatars and then comment how you don't understand that some guy would comment that they were provocative,,I guess you just don't see it huh? , you relate your private life as a strip tease dancer and wonder why some guys might think you are loose, you have made it abundantly clear guys find you very attractive, that you wear sexy clothes, that you've lived a rather adventurous life, made it clear you'd be willing to try new drugs, have tried drugs in your past, made it clear you are available, recently I read for example some comment by you that you don't understand why men talk about women's stretch marks or find them unattractive but then you add, just in case any guy is wondering. "I don't have stretch marks." Look Moniker don t play dumb and pretend you have no idea why you draw the attention you claim you do, because it's obvious you aren't that dumb.

and another post

Moniker I could respond to everything you said which I briefly read, but I'm not going to, to save myself some time. You play dishonest or stupid games, I tend to believe it's your dishonestly similar to your playing dumb, like 'oh Audrey Hepborn isn't provocative', as if I ever said she was, or that was the avator in question, or even the only avator you've ever used or that none of your avators were ever the least bit provocative. It boils down to I've noticed that you seem to want to be viewed a particular way, but then you play dumb as if you never said anything to warrant some guy picking up on it in the first place. And for me, this has nothing to do with you being single or mentioning you were a stripper. And frankly I'm not judging you on this, other than I'm simply commenting on you playing dumb about it. And if guys are propositioning you in pm's it's understandable. Or if some guy shows interest, it's understandable. You put it out there, all those things I mentioned previously either about you or what you said, and that's just a very small sample.

But quite frankly on this board from reading your posts and I never read your blog my impression was you wanted male attention, from all males not just one. And I didn't get that impression from mere mention of the word "sex". It was based on the little things you'd say which accululated over time to form a picture. It was the bits and pieces, not any one particular post. Just little things. i.e. something like..."I like men who are intelligent that turns me on" I remember you saying something to that effect in a thread I was involved in as was JAK. What do you expect when you say things like that. But that is just one small example. And as I said, it's not a big deal. But if you were really truly not wanting male attention, and that's a decision up to you, you wouldn't have posted any provocative avatars, for example. That's really quite an obvious clue. The latest one isn't particularly, though it's a little. It's a demure Hepburn. But many in the past have been more overt.

So Schmo while you haven't seen anything to warrant her acknowledging that what she posts has contributed to men propositioning her, I have.

Over the last year I have commented to Moniker on a number of occasions and criticized her naïveté, and my perception was based solely on board posting. I link to a discussion in the opening post above in which I had a conversation with Beastie and her on this.

And your perception counts as evidence? Doesn't seem any more valid than my own.

Right, you have your perception, I have mine.

Once again Schmo I'm not the one complaining. I'm acknowledging that her posting style was instrumental in getting a reaction that she found offensive. To that extent she shares responsibility in people's perception and reaction.

Well, then you seem to have a warped sense of personal responsibility, and only you can help you with that. Children think "he/she made me do it." Adults take responsibility for their own actions.

Correct adults take responsibility for their own actions. The issue here is ..were the actions by men who propositioned her wrong. Well in my opinion, not if the men thought she would accept being propositioned positively. I think at this point in time, they wouldn't proposition her, given that she's made clear her displeasure. In that thread in the opening post she acknowledged continuuing discussions without making it clear their advance was unwelcomed.

Schmo are you the type to ever proposition any other woman than your wife? Some people (men or women) are not that way inclined.

Proposition? No. Flirt? Perhaps sometimes. Do I think about it? Again, sometimes, but I'd never betray my wife.

Good for you Schmo. When one makes a legal marriage contract part of that agreement is they won't betray their spouse, that's generally assumed unless discussed and agreed otherwise. However, not everyone is of the same mind on this and who are we to judge. So the fact that you wouldn't betray your wife does not mean that others wouldn't, nor do we know their circumstances.

Not sure how that's relevant to whether I think Moniker be open to it or not.

Well I believe you were making the point that it is wrong to proposition and you wouldn't do it as an example.

I have been talking about men and it could be women too, sexually propositioning. I certainly don't think that comes close to raping.
I also don't look upon sexual propositions as inappropriate in the context/environment of an internet message boards..if there is strong evidence an individual has given out sexual cues of interest generally.

Well, then, it must be's fault!

Hold on a minute Schmo. You are using the word "fault" as if it's been established these men's behaviors are wrong. It's a loaded word you're using. Not everyone thinks propositioning others is wrong. Some people think of it as harmless, even healthy to some extent. Really Schmo what is the harm in trying?

All the men are innocent, because she invited it! Of course, that assumes you know the full extent of the advances and that you are bang on correct about Moniker's "cues..."

Yes on message boards in pm's all men and all women are innocent if they proposition someone...you got it! That's what I think. It's very simple, if someone doesn't like the advance given all one has to do is ignore or tell the person to essentially piss off. One doesn't need to carry on conversation with anyone in pm. That's a choice.

I hate it when it gets to the point in a conversation when it seems like the person you're talking to is more intent on making an argument than acknowledging a point, and I think we've just crossed that line. It's like you couldn't care less what I'm saying and are actively ignoring it. If you don't care, that's perfectly ok. Just don't pretend you do.

I do think Schmo that it is likely you are carrying on the same standards that you are aware of in the workplace onto a message board with regards to sexual harrassment. Sexual harrassment is simply not tolerated in the workplace and I explained in a post above why that would be. But on a message board one does have control over who they talk to privately and who they don't. In the workplace there is no choice.

On the off chance you do care, the parallel is not about the severity of the act. Quit being distracted by that for just a second and try to focus on what the point really is. It's the location of responsibility, not how badly someone was harmed.

Ok your focus is on the word "responsibility". Perhaps my use of that is incorrect, so let me elaborate further. Moniker is not responsible for the actual words said to her. in my opinion she shares responsibility for creating an impression to others that sexual advances would be welcomed. I do not see a crime or wrongdoing in people(men or women) propositioning others in private on a message board. I think it is a simple matter for adults to handle.

And as we've both established here, we don't know if any lines were crossed. You keep acting like you know the extent to which men made advances to Moniker, and yet, if they were private, you have no way of knowing. The fact is, it appears that you are trying to diminish any feelings Mon has about all this, dismissing any severity she may have suffered simply because you perceive her as a flirt. Well, that's offensive, insensitive, and doesn't look good on you.

You are absolutely right. Moniker does not have my sympathy. I certainly do not think it a big issue for any adult to proposition another in private on a message board..male or female.

Come on, marg. I know you're smarter than this.

I don't know that I can make it any clearer than that.

Thanks for the ad hom.

[Alf'Omega]

I've asked you to define it because it appears to me you are treating propositioning another in private as sexual harrassment which you consider wrong and that such a person needs counseling. I believe that is your position. So I want to make sure I understand clearly what it is you consider to be wrong.

Oh my goodness.

This is what you wrote, which I agreed with, and thought we were talking about all along:

Well actually if you really want to be open about sexuality then there is nothing wrong with a male or a female sexually propositioning another. No one is forced to take them up on it. If rejected and they continue then they are harassing.

When did I ever claim that propositioning someone on a message board constituted harassment? Why do you suppose I've mentioned how we don't know the details or the severity of the advances several times in this thread? It's because we don't have the details. Apparently, that doesn't seem to matter to you, because she invited whatever she's gotten, so she's responsible.

So Schmo while you haven't seen anything to warrant her acknowledging that what she posts has contributed to men propositioning her, I have.

Well, the examples you provided are weak. I'm tempted to make a judgment as to why you're interpreting them this way, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and reserve judgment. I'll just say that I think you're reading way too much into the way she talks.

Correct adults take responsibility for their own actions. The issue here is ..were the actions by men who propositioned her wrong. Well in my opinion, not if the men thought she would accept being propositioned positively. I think at this point in time, they wouldn't proposition her, given that she's made clear her displeasure. In that thread in the opening post she acknowledged continuuing discussions without making it clear their advance was unwelcomed.

Again, this goes back to the question of how severe and repetitive were these advances? How were they worded? There are classy ways to approach women and there are piggish ways.

We don't know. You want to blame Moniker for inviting this, and you don't even know what she's complaining about.

If all it was were a simple, "You want to get together?" "No thanks." Then yeah, she shouldn't complain. Is that what you think took place? Personally, I have no idea, but I have a hard time believing she's be as upset as she got if that was the kind of exchange we're talking about.

When one makes a legal marriage contract part of that agreement is they won't betray their spouse, that's generally assumed unless discussed and agreed otherwise. However, not everyone is of the same mind on this and who are we to judge. So the fact that you wouldn't betray your wife does not mean that others wouldn't, nor do we know their circumstances.

So let me get this straight... just because I'm not the type of person that would break my marital contract, I should go easy on others harassing someone in private?

In other words, what the hell does this have to do with anything we're talking about here?

Not sure how that's relevant to whether I think Moniker be open to it or not.

Well I believe you were making the point that it is wrong to proposition and you wouldn't do it as an example.

Oh. Right. Well, that's not what I'm saying. It occurs to me all along that I've been talking about a man sexually harassing a woman and you've been talking about innocent come-on lines.

Hold on a minute Schmo. You are using the word "fault" as if it's been established these men's behaviors are wrong. It's a loaded word you're using. Not everyone thinks propositioning others is wrong. Some people think of it as harmless, even healthy to some extent. Really Schmo what is the harm in trying?

More evidence we've been talking past each other. I got it now.

All the men are innocent, because she invited it! Of course, that assumes you know the full extent of the advances and that you are bang on correct about Moniker's "cues..."

Yes on message boards in pm's all men and all women are innocent if they proposition someone...you got it! That's what I think. It's very simple, if someone doesn't like the advance given all one has to do is ignore or tell the person to essentially piss off. One doesn't need to carry on conversation with anyone in pm. That's a choice.

Well guess what? I think the same thing. I've never thought differently. I'm having a hard time believing this is what you've been referring to all along, especially when I've said over and over that I was talking about harassment, and that I didn't know if it occurred, but if it had, it was the men's responsibility. But I guess that's what you've been thinking. How silly of me.

I do think Schmo that it is likely you are carrying on the same standards that you are aware of in the workplace onto a message board with regards to sexual harrassment. Sexual harrassment is simply not tolerated in the workplace and I explained in a post above why that would be. But on a message board one does have control over who they talk to privately and who they don't. In the workplace there is no choice.

Yes, there is a difference... you'd have to do a lot more to be offensive in a PM, which really makes me wonder what was said.

So no, I don't think I've been applying workplace harassment rules to the message board, just like I don't apply most "real life" rules to a message board.

You are absolutely right. Moniker does not have my sympathy. I certainly do not think it a big issue for any adult to proposition another in private on a message board..male or female.

And why should she get your sympathy? All you have is your perception of her and absolutely no information about the other side. A fair and balanced approach to viewing the situation is out of the question, because you already have your mind made up, and it's Mon's fault.

Alrighty then.

Come on, marg. I know you're smarter than this.

I don't know that I can make it any clearer than that.

Thanks for the ad hom.

That wasn't an ad hom. I was being serious. While I normally do find you at least attempting to be fair and balanced in most threads, on this issue, there is something entirely different going on, and I have to wonder just what's at stake for you personally, because this doesn't seem like you (at least, what I had thought was you... what the hell do I know? And hey, maybe I'm wrong about Moniker too.)

Why not answer this question, since you seem to have Mon all sorted out: why would she claim this "behind the scenes" stuff and be this upset if she invited it? Wouldn't "someone like her" like the attention?

[_marg]

I think Schmo we are pretty much in agreement, that a proposition isn't harassment, but if repeated it could be considerd such, however in pm's one can control that.

I don't think answering your final question will help matters for Moniker, so I will leave it unanswered. Any answer I gave would simply be conjecture on my part and I'm not a psychologist.