Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Sure. This is a nuanced, common sense approach. In other words, this is good advice for that situation. The problem I see - well, one of a number of problems - is the oversimplification of complex human interactions that are based on unexpressed signals. When you take good advice like the above, and reduce it to "never make a comment to someone you're sexually attracted to unless you'd also make it to someone you weren't sexually attracted to", not only is that unrealistic and facile, it's quintessentially repressive. It treats sexual attraction as some bugbear we should all be constantly on guard against. That in itself is something not to take lightly.
|
It’s a basic rule that informs a better understanding of how to deal with people. If it’s not nuanced enough for you, then stop taking it so rigidly and understand the point that the rule is getting at. And please, understand what I actually said, because you’re making it a selfish thing about who YOU are sexually attracted to. The rule is essentially, do not make a sexual comment to someone you aren’t in a sexual
relationship with. Relationship, in this sense, meaning a common understanding between two people of sexual potential. This eliminates strangers, family members, co-workers, etc.
If you think it’s unrealistic, facile, and repressive to reach a point where you at least believe the feeling of sexual potential is mutual before you make a sexual remark to someone, then I think you need to seriously re-analyse how you treat those you’re interested in, because it’s absolutely part of the message behind this movement.
Making sexual remarks to someone who is not interested in selfish gratification and, in some cases, straight up harassment. I don’t think you really need to sit here defending your right to not be so repressed that you can’t sexually harass women, do you? I think a level of repression that avoids that is actually just fine. Call me “unrealistic.”