Cat-calling is harmless flattery...

Post Reply New Topic

You seem to have misunderstood what Alex was getting at. He's essentially asking if there is a universal standard being applied or if it's based on arbitrary subjective interpretation and individual sensitivity. Your own definition, for example, is what I would consider to be almost reasonable, yet there are people who believe that saying hello to a stranger is tantamount to rape.



Regarding the above exchange, I'd be interested in hearing LoveforLoki's definition of cat-calling. It seems probable that it will differ from your own.

There is a lot surrounding the environment of cat calling that makes it inappropriate.

For instance if a woman is walking alone in the city, a place where danger lurks around every alley way. She is nervous and on guard especially at night and to be addressed and approached by a strange man is automatically alarming, even if it is a simple hello. If a woman is in a small town where people are more friendly and there is less crime and someone says hello it is less alarming. If the woman is sitting in a coffee shop and a man comes over and says hello in a non-intrusive manor then that is not cat calling.

Cat calling has a special vibe, a tone, it is whistling, saying things like "Oh Hello Baby" or " Hey honey, come over here", it is of a nature far more deviant then just a simple hello how are you today. It is the tone in the person voice said in a certain deviant kind of way. Not just a simple friendly "Hi" and then they carry on with their day. It is meant to degrade and intimidate the woman. It is stems from objectifying and sexualizing a woman, it comes from those men mentally turning her into an pleasurable object rather than a real person.

What I do not get is how men feel that we should just shut up and take it, as if we as women have no right to say this bothers us. I do not understand why we have to justify it or explain ourselves, it should be just rightfully understood that us women do not like it. It should not matter that if men think it's harmless flirting or fun because it is not a mans choice, they are not enduring it, it is strictly a woman's choice what they want to endure on a daily basis. In some instances cat calls have also turned into attacks and rapes, this is the fact. There is no real way for a woman to know what cat calls (or being approached by a strange man) will lead to that, especially in the city where it happens most.

It would be much better in today's corrupt society if men approached women in a safer environment in a more appropriate manor. Is is not a man's right to tell us that we should just shut up and take the compliment and that if we don't then we are just stuck up, ungrateful b*tches. Is our right as women to voice what makes us uncomfortable and to have men respect that. It is never a mans choice to tell us how we should feel about something.

I understand the problem of harassment, but it’s surrounded by such a big gray area it still sounds like, as a man, you really should avoid complimenting women at all, because, if they don’t like you, it’ll probably be considered cat-calling.

What do you mean by “object”? Just like with cat-calling, I doubt there’s a unique, widely accepted definition. To a heterosexual man, women are by default inherently pleasurable (though this can be ruined by other qualities, of course), but this doesn’t mean you have to see them as “objects”. It’s no wonder, considering that’s how natural selection has worked on them. What is not so readily apparent and you have to learn is that pointing out that a woman is a pleasurable being will most likely get you in trouble some way or other. In practice, it seems the best thing you can do is completely ignore this fact, like an elephant in the room. Surely enough, this will prevent you from getting relationships, or even making female friends, but, at least, it’ll minimize your chances of being considered a creep.

Ah, now I understand. Thank you.

I understand batty, hyper-sensitive women exist, which is why I limit my definition of "cat-calling" to the blatantly offensive ("Hey, baby, nice tits.").

I'm guessing the people on this thread are probably operating under different impressions of what constitutes "cat-calling," which inevitably causes clashes.

Not to mention the fact that they're usually assuming by default that the guy's "thinking stuff", whether he is or not. And then they're sitting there waiting for him say something that resembles a sexual-related comment.

Actually, I don't think the "grey area" is quite that big......at least not for people who have their heads screwed-on right.

Dunno, i've experienced it from males and females, and I've witnessed females doing it to males as well.

But the funniest thing that happened to me is when I thanked one older Aspie for not being sexually advancing but friendly, and he took it very badly. Oh well it seems it's easier to transmute oneself into a newt than please some people.

OY GEVALT!! !



I don't want to be a newt! I want to be a pony!

Yes, I had that film in mind. Sadly, there was no witch willing to do that spell for me.

You've made a few points which I think require individual responses, and so I am going to revert to type and fisk my way through your post.



The same is true for men. I have a bit of a problem with the language you're adopting because it sounds like a dichotomy of "women are the victims, men are the aggressors" - I'll come back to that later. We're all vulnerable to an extent, and there are people (of both genders) who have no compunctions about preying on the weak. Personally I don't like any strangers to approach me ever. The thing is, no matter how we perceive it due to an increased anxiety, a simple hello is still just a simple hello.



Okay, so we're in the realm of unwanted attention from a specific archetype of male towards a woman. I'm going to refrain from commenting on sexual objectification except to state that it isn't relevant here. The problem is one of anxiety caused by the aforementioned unsolicited attention.



I'm not sure what men you're talking about in the first sentence, but here's my take on it. People have the right to address each other in public, and sometimes that's going to take the form of people talking to you in a manner that you don't like. You have every right to say it bothers you, but that right is the same right that allows fat, creepy old men to say they like your hair when you're out in public. It absolutely does matter if the intention is harmless flirting, because part of your argument is that the intention is something else. Either intent is relevant or it is not.

If a man chooses to express himself, however impolitely, it absolutely is his right to do so. Just like it is for women. The slippery slope argument of cat calling sometimes turns into rape is absolute nonsense. Rather it is safe to assume that a man who is capable of raping a stranger would quite readily demean strangers verbally too.



The man in your analogy absolutely has the right to tell you to take it as a compliment, just as you have the right to not do so. You have no right to determine what his opinions should be, no matter how misguided they are.

We're back to the dichotomy of men vs women again, and it's somewhat perturbing to see the language you're using. I'm going to rewrite that last paragraph to demonstrate what I mean.

"It would be much better if people approached each other in a polite manner, and respected each other as individuals. I don't like being told how to react to things I find personally offensive, but I accept that we don't all have the same standard of tolerance. it is our right as people to voice our opinions on anything and have them respected. No matter how much anyone insists, nobody can dictate my feelings to me."

The heart of the problem is that the majority of people are moderate. By changing the language you can at least have a discussion with that majority. Telling men that they don't have the right to express their views, on the other hand, won't get you anywhere - especially with anyone who thinks that asking to see a stranger's breasts is socially acceptable behaviour.

Sexual objectification is a redundant term meaning "x is attracted to y sexually". We're hard-wired to find each other sexually appealing. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is, frankly, delusional.

We are also hard-wired to desire being treated with respect.

Yes, this is exactly the problem. There is a definite urge by activists to redefine terms that already have a perfectly reasonable definition. It's a fantastic way of creating conflict but serves no useful purpose for the majority of us. I find it especially distasteful when the narrative indicates or suggests that it is anything other than a minority of men and women who are guilty of 'social crimes'.



Finding someone sexually desirable or physically beautiful is not disrespectful by any definition of disrespect that I recognise. We're actually hard-wired for instant gratification - the social concepts of respect and equality run contrary to human nature. In order for society to function, we have had to overcome our base instincts and redefine the tribal hierarchy. All the evidence suggests that we're managing this just fine at the moment, without the need for sensationalism or the increasingly shrill accusations of the politically divisive.

^^^

Actually the idea that respect and equality run contrary to human nature is an antiquated idea based on the chimpanzee primate per alpha male behavior, violence, and domination.

Human beings share a similar empathy gene with the Bonobo and similar empathy related brain structures that no other primate shares.

While the chimpanzee rapes and pillages for domination the peaceful EASY LOVING BONOBO RESOLVES CONFLICT AND POTENTIAL VIOLENCE THROUGH pleasure seeking sexual behavior.

So yes, it's perfectly natural to get turned on by SEX ALMOST ALL THE TIME FOR HUMAN BEINGS WHO SHARE much of the nature of the Bonobo including the Kinsey report that indicates that only about a third of human beings are truly innately monogamous by choice rather than cultural or religious dictation.

However, human beings and Bonobos in the wild are naturally matriarchal leaning social hierarchies where the females rule the roost through social cooperation for the most part.

The 20 studied most peaceful societies in the world are relatively small societies where sharing and social cooperation is the norm AND NOT collecting and chimpanzee like dominating alpha male structured patriarchy.

With the advent of Agriculture the ability to gain instant gratification grows greater and progressively through the Industrial age and now the Information Technology age.

This is not what human beings are evolved for as they stay healthy with intermittent gratification, more so than instant gratification.

THIS IS plain to see in a culture now where there are so many relatively CHEAP AND EASILY ACCESSIBLE WAYS TO INCREASE THE INNATE PLEASURE NEUROCHEMICAL DOPAMINE THAT HUMANS NOW FOR THE MOST PART SPEND LITTLE TIME exercising their human being in movement, PER PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE.

This includes non-verbal SOCIAL COMMUNICATION intelligence PER ways of EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND YES, THESE ARE the main type of intelligences that humans are innately evolved for to even survive in ways of social cooperation.

The negative impact of this on human beings that are no longer balanced per their innate human being ways of emotional and physical intelligence are pain killers of some kind used by almost 50 percent of the general population, sky rocketing use of anti-depressants even increasing in childhood cases of depression, as well as close to two thirds of school age children who are pre-type two diabetic.

NO, HUMAN BEING IS NOT JUST GETTING ALONG OKAY.

HUMAN SUFFERING IS MORE SILENT THAN THE PAST BUT IT SPEAKS A MIGHTY VOICE IN DISINTEGRATION OF PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE.

THE STATISTICS BEAR THAT OUT IN IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE.

AND rising cases of higher functioning autism per environmental risk factors specific to this discussion are relevant as well. Truly it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if one doesn't use it per emotional and physical intelligence one either doesn't have it or loses it.

The American Education system is EFFECTIVELY 'ret*d' WHEN IT COMES TO SCHOOLING FULL HUMAN BEING.

AND YES, EFFECTIVE when it comes to creating cogs in a very complex machine of culture.

The price of that, sadly as it may be for many folks, is losing their innate ancestrally valued human being.

EVEN SADDER than this IS MANY PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA OR REFERENCE POINT TO even knowing what happened to them per cause of their HUMAN SUFFERING.

The saddest result of all is studies that show that college age adults have lost up to 30 percent of empirical measures of empathy in the last several decades.

This is the reason that people are turning into chimpanzees and losing the love and respect of the Bonobo who like human being overall, is innately evolved for basic loving ways and social cooperation.

The scientific now studied reason why is that humans have two pathways of the brain; one per mechanical cognition, yes to keep the machine of culture going and one for social cognition to keep the empathy of human being going.

When one pathway is used the other is repressed.

When one pathway is used to the exclusion of the other, the other withers away like a river that dries up of empathy or a systemizing mechanical cognition way of path of brain closing up that is necessary as well for the continued development of tools of culture for greater human comfort.

Human being requires a balance and when folks lose their innate respect for their fellow human beings it truly is a thermostat of the health of culture and HUMAN BEING.

AND CAT CALLS AGGRESSIVELY DONE RATHER THAN in truly loving ways OF DESIRE IN COMUNICATION that are consensual are A PART OF EVIDENCE FOR THAT.

finding a *person* attractive is not the same as objectifying them sexually. A sexual object does not need individuality or personality, and does not need any dignity or respect. It's the difference between 'I'd tap that ass,' and 'I'd like to get to know that person.'

We are about equally related to chimpanzees and bonobos, but we are clearly a separate species. Just for starters, the tribe-to-tribe cultural variation in either of those species is paltry compared to human cultural variation.

Wrt. 'Hi' and cat-calling, very often what starts out as 'Hi' turns into some variation of 'nice tits' or 'I'd like to (*%^T*Y your (*&(*^)^%' if the woman respond even with a casual 'Hi' back. Usually it's not just innocent human connection when it comes from a stranger.

Aspie blankface works very well against cat-calling, btw. Men seem not to know what to do with it.

Actually, there are many similarities that humans share with Bonobos that both separate species do not share with chimpanzees or any other primate, for that matter.

Bonobos share a similar empathy gene as human beings as well as related empathy brain structures and are much more peaceful than the chimpanzee in their simple matriarchal ways of culture, including using sexual pleasure to reduce instead of enhance violence, as compared to all other primates including some humans, at least, it appears who are the exception rather than the common rule per innate human behavior. :)

They are the only primates to share similar sexual behavior to humans as well per face to face sexual interaction.

But anyway here is a full documentary on Bonobos that is changing the way humans look at themselves as well, in science, at least.

And yes, overall both chimpanzees and bonobos in approximate DNA similarity share about 98 percent with human beings, but the differences in the empathy DNA and empathy related brain structures, do set the chimpanzee and bonobo apart as very different primate species, in true effect and affect of general behavior, and culture as well.



And as far direct sexual invitations even among strangers of the opposite sex after a hello or hi that is not common human behavior for either male or female on the street that is more associated with a personality disorder than civil discourse among humans.

ON on TOP OF THAT it doesn't work and is truly only aggression and violence related behavior instead of real consensual human connection, and truly part of a rape culture that the 'chimpanzees' among 'US Bonobos' exist as a minority of TRUE HUMANS THANK GOODNESS.

AT LEAST WHERE I LIVE, AND IF it is that way where you live, I would get the Hell out of 'CHIMPANZEE LAND', IF POSSIBLE, AS THAT IS THE CRUDEST BEHAVIOR ONE NORMALLY SEES RELEGATED TO A DANCE HALL WHERE POTENTIALLY IT MAY BE WELCOME AMONG THE 'WILDER' SEGMENT OF WOMEN IN 'OUR' SPECIES, PER INNATE PROMISCUITY, BUT STILL RELATIVELY SPEAKING ONLY RARELY SO, as far as I can see in my extensive current REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE in the dance halls of life.