yea, Jessica! :) you're my hero!

You know, there's enough material out there that we could probably to a Feminist Fuck You AND a Public Perv Fuck You every week.

ann, there is one every week-on fridays, what I think you mean, is that we can do one everyday, right? lol

RTFO!!!

Wow, that experience was fucked up. Thats why I'm taking gun lessons. No one seems to give a shit that someones attempting to sexually abuse you (in the form of rape, assault, ect) so you have to secure that yourself.

That is why I carry pepper spray.

It tends to be a conversation starter too. Whenever someone goes "whoa! Is that mace?" I go into my story of when I was jogging and some guy was following me around in his car, whacking off.

I'm adding this to my facebook, btw.

That rocked. :D
You're a bright spot in my day, thank you!

A brick would come in especially handy when a guy is following you in his car; mace can't penetrate windows. Unfortunately, bricks are too heavy for that to be practical.

If the guy who was taking pictures subsequently got kicked in the head, would the jury have dropped charges against the girl because of "assumption of risk" statutes? And shouldn't he be brought up on federal charges for creating child porn, since she was only 16?

That made my day. Thank you!

Right on! I really do believe this kind of sexual assault harassment is ALL about the power dynamic.

These type of things happened to me a few times when I was around 13-15. But I think I've only been flashed once as an adult, it's hard to say, I was deliberately not looking directly at him because I was alone in a remote parking lot at night.

The reason i say it's a power thing as an adult, I clock in at a stocky standoffish 6'. I'm a reasonably attractive woman, but I also look like I can handle myself. I play a little game when a guy is being overly personal and intimidating, his attitude changes dramatically when I stand up. Most of my harassment is confined to passing cars and amazon fetishists.

I agree in an ideal world violence is bad and physical intimidation should be avoided. However, we don't live in that world and it's really interesting how some men change their behavior when their physical dominance is in question.

For a long time, I've conditioned myself to laugh and draw attention if any perv ever tries to do shit like that in front of me in public.

Actually, one of my male friends told me the worst things to do is to point and laugh at them...implying that they have a small penis.

Right on! I really do believe this kind of sexual assault harassment is ALL about the power dynamic.

These type of things happened to me a few times when I was around 13-15. But I think I've only been flashed once as an adult, it's hard to say, I was deliberately not looking directly at him because I was alone in a remote parking lot at night.

The reason i say it's a power thing as an adult, I clock in at a stocky standoffish 6'. I'm a reasonably attractive woman, but I also look like I can handle myself. I play a little game when a guy is being overly personal and intimidating, his attitude changes dramatically when I stand up. Most of my harassment is confined to passing cars and amazon fetishists.

I agree in an ideal world violence is bad and physical intimidation should be avoided. However, we don't live in that world and it's really interesting how some men change their behavior when their physical dominance is in question.

hellz yeah! Friday Feminist Fuck Yous are the highlight of me week!

A hearty hear-hear to all of that, except for one thing: the use of the word "pervert." This word has been and still is used to denigrate anyone with "non-traditional" sexual practices - especially homosexuality, but also using sex toys, non-monogamy, BDSM, or even just oral sex. We shouldn't reinforce its stigmatizing power by using it to describe this harrassing, invasive behavior. The problem here isn't "perversion," it's peeping, harassment, and assault.

dykelawyer, you know - i thought about that, and i think you're right. but perhaps it's my own lack of vocab - i couldn't think of another word that would encompass not just street harassers, but flashers, guys who assault etc. Plus I like alliteration. But you're right, I probably should have taken more time to think of a word that isn't so loaded with sexhating.

It's all good. I had the same thought when I hit "post" -- 'but how else to say it with such concision and punch'? Admittedly, I don't have an ideal substitute handy. I probably would have just written, "Flashers, Harassers, Peeps" or something less catchy but more descriptive.

So this is what all those boys in the academy have been complaining about: feminism makes writing catchy prose hard!!

Hey, weird! You know, I can't think of a word, either -- not one that encompasses the notion of people who impose unwanted sexual behavior on others; that includes flashers, gropers, and street harrassers. You'd think there would be a number of readily recalled terms for that kind of fella, since they appear to be a dime a dozen.

Perhaps we can create a new word?

My word is molester. An adult who exposes his genitals to a minor or fondles a minor is a child molester, so why isn't an adult who exposes himself to strangers or fondles strangers on a subway a "subway molester"; on the street a "street molester"?

It has the added sting that it carries with it the familiarity of the "child ..." construction.

Um...well, I agree with about half of the video. One does have a right to expect that they not be physically assaulted, which includes stalking & verbal harassment. One does NOT, however, have the right to demand that they not be offended, which to me is what you're asking for if you want to arrest simple weenie-wagglers. The act of someone showing you their genitals does not constitute a violation of your rights, unless you want to side with the people who support the criminalization of public breastfeeding.

I realize that breastfeeding is much more likable than sexual exhibitionism, but "I'm appalled by it" remains an inadequate justification to criminalize either of them.

Har! I suddenly remembered something that happened with my sister ... long ago and far away (Bombay). We were making our way out of a train station, in the de rigueur torrential flux of people, she a little ways away from me, and suddenly I saw her--a "little girl" by all appearances--kick some guy's ass. I mean literally. She planted her foot right on his ass, and started yelling at him.

She wouldn't say, but let there be no doubt. He had been up to no good ...

He tried arguing back for about two seconds. Then he slunk away.

Knowingly or not, she was relying on more support than just her nerdy brother. And she would have got it. If the creep had persisted, people would have undoubtedly kicked his ass--literally, metaphorically, and everything in between.

Whether they would do it for fundamentally good reasons or not--sure, there's that ... but in the heat of the moment, it doesn't matter a great deal ... Paradoxical as it may seem, in a third world city, in the 80s, a woman could expect a minimum degree of public support.

Only after being inducted into middle class America did I see people ignoring this kind of thing, or acting like it didn't exist ... not to mention women themselves trying ineptly to cover it up ... or apologizing for "being harassable" ... and how about simpering at, or thanking, some random asshole who says "nice ass"! For someone who expected the woman to take off her shoe* and charge at the guy to slap him with it, there were plenty of rude awakenings. But then, I didn't know she couldn't count on anyone's support.

I probably sound like a bellyaching old Royko. One of the reasons I read this blog--not my "demographic" at all--is that it reminds me of saner days.

* or a whole fish, if she was a fishwife ... nothing beats being slapped across the face with "fresh catch" ...

"The act of someone showing you their genitals does not constitute a violation of your rights, unless you want to side with the people who support the criminalization of public breastfeeding."

Um, I really don't see how these are the same thing. The other day I saw a man with his hands in his pants for a second but when I looked back he had stopped thankfully. It's not only offensive. It's feels like a violation.

Thomas, totally. Molester it is.

UTV, I'm on a plane about to take off so I'm not going to even touch your comment until I land tonight, lest I get in trouble for keeping my blackberry on... But, seriously? I don't have the right not to have cocks waived in my face? When does it become an infringment, when someone ejaculates on me? When they touch me? We absolutely have a right not to be privy to someone's sexual...moment, or whatever you want to call it. The whole point of flashing is to make someone else uncomfortable, it isn't like I'm offended by dicks on nude beaches or anything. Anyway, by not touching ur comment I guess I meant type till I couldmt anymore. Ah well.

Unicron, yes, someone taking out his dick and waving it at me *does* constitute a violation of my rights. It is, as mentioned by Roni, all about the power dynamic.

There are a number of reasons why someone jerking off at me is *completely different* that someone breast feeding in public (not least of all the fact that breasts are not genitals), suffice it to say that they are two very different situations. And one is a threatening one.

I've been jerked off at before (as have many of the people who read this blog), and I can tell you that I felt more than "offended". Whether you intended to or not, you've belittled the sometimes traumatic experiences that a lot of women here have faced.

pedgehog - You have shown that you were offended and "more". You have not shown that your rights were violated. What right specifically are you talking about?

How about the right not to be sexually harrassed? And, actually, it already is criminalized to take your penis out in public, so moot point UTV.

Long time reader, first time poster here. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned on this site yet, but the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center has teamed up with the MBTA to combat subway harassers/gropers/grinders, etc. with a new ad campaign on the T (not able to remember my HTML at the moment, so click on my name for the link). Not sure how well it'll work, but at least it's letting women and molesters know that these actions are NOT acceptable. (Personally, when someone was grinding against me, I was too scared to turn around, let alone try to get a good look at the guy or report what happened.) At least it's an attempt to acknowledge that there is a problem though.

The actions we're describing here are not merely offensive, they are criminal. It is an absolute violation to forcibly subject someone to being part of these sexual acts without their consent. As anyone who has ever been accosted in this way can likely attest, it is debasing and upsetting to no end. The egregious nature of these encounters is only exacerbated by their ambiguity. Questioning whether or not these actions are violations or mere offenses only serves to harm women and ensure that as this phenomena persists, women will be further objectified, confused and silenced.

"Unicron, yes, someone taking out his dick and waving it at me *does* constitute a violation of my rights. It is, as mentioned by Roni, all about the power dynamic."

What right specifically does it violate? What measurable harm is inflicted on you? Your reaction doesn't count, as YOU are the only one responsible for it. It would be incorrect to assume that Roni's interpretation of her experience is universally applicable.

"There are a number of reasons why someone jerking off at me is *completely different* that someone breast feeding in public (not least of all the fact that breasts are not genitals), suffice it to say that they are two very different situations. And one is a threatening one."

I already granted that they're different. My point remains that laws against either of these actions are unjustified because they amount to imposing criminal penalties for violating arbitrary standards of taste and modesty.

The "threatening" nature of someone jerking off is completely subjective. You have the option to look away. Until the wacker prevents you from doing this, you have no grounds on which to assert that they're threatening you.

I do not discount the experience of someone who felt traumatized at being flashed, jerked off "at" or what have you. It would be arrogant to say that all of these people's experiences & feelings were invalid. They have right to be upset, but, for the reasons I've given, they'd have to prove a violation beyond simple exposure before I could support any sort of criminal penalty.

Unicron--
When someone is jerking off in public, they're not feeding a child. Breastfeeding does not equal public masturbation. End of story.

I want to actually backup Unicron_The_Vagina here a bit. I actually do totally agree that if the person is not: touching you, talking to you, ejaculating on you or on your property, then I actually don't see nudity in itself as something that is very offensive or punishable.

And I actually think it's feminist to think this way because it's pro-body and anti on right-wing ideas of sex. I mean, we've all seen tons of naked people before. I've had guys flash me, and it didn't bother me at all - again so long as they didn't try to touch me, etc.

I feel this is somewhat similar to the breast feeding, right-wing, anti-anything sex type arguments. That by taking this position we're saying nudity is evil, etc. which to me is anti-feminist. Because I don't think there is anything wrong with the human body. I'd even be perfectly ok to have people walk down the street totally naked if they want, though I'm not suggesting that. It's just that I don't like how some people are totally against anything that *they* perceive to be even remotely sexual. The human body in itself doesn't have to be sexual, we make it so with some of our rules.

Like I said, everyone has seen plenty of naked people. And guess what, if you are a woman you've had many men jerk off to you, whether you knew it or not. You can pretty much assume every single male co-worker, friend, etc. has jerked off to you before (not saying women don't do this too but still). I've even had guys admit the only reason they have facebook accounts is to gain access to pictures of female friends,coworkers,etc. so they can masturbate to them. So it happens.

Just the act of being naked is not a problem in my opinion. It's when someone takes action against you there is a problem - as soon as you talk to me, touch me, go on my property, etc. Then I flip out and have a serious issue. But if you want to pull it out in public and don't do those things to me then I don't really care because I don't consider nudity evil.

My post probably didn't convey any of what I wanted it to, but it's just hard to put into words how I feel about this.

"I already granted that they're different. My point remains that laws against either of these actions are unjustified because they amount to imposing criminal penalties for violating arbitrary standards of taste and modesty."

They are sexual harassment because the violator is calling attention to their sexual parts in a way that makes people uncomfortable specifically because of their link to sexuality.

Pretty clearly sexual harassment, at least.

Whereas breastfeeding is providing food to a baby. If someone was shaking their boobs on the street in my face, that would probably be sexual harassment in today's culture, but breastfeeding can't be called sexual harassment.

If someone makes me, and my reactions (regardless of whose fault my reactions are), a part of their sexual fantasy/jerk off fest- without my permission and in my face, then they have violated my rights.

That's my two-cents.

because the violator is calling attention to their sexual parts in a way that makes people uncomfortable specifically because of their link to sexuality.

This is a valid point though you must be careful here, because couldn't the same argument be used against people who dress to sexy? Show too much leg/boob/whatever?

It's a complicated issue, I just go back to how we fight for control over our own bodies. 100 years ago it was very immodest for a woman to even show ANY of her leg, and we fought against that. Women in Canada fought hard to be able to walk down the street topless. We fought to be able to breastfeed, choose for ourselves abortion, etc., all because we want to have control of our bodies, which I fully support, so I'm just saying that to then saying that showing your body, e.g., your genitals is really evil, seems kinda contradictory imo.

It's just where you draw the line. Because I agree that some of these incidents are clearly sexual harassment or assault or whatever, it just depends what exactly what we're talking about. My position is nudity is not a problem, it's if you do something that *involves* me beyond just being in my line of vision that I have a problem.

"Just the act of being naked is not a problem in my opinion."

Okay, but Jessica was talking about a guy masturbating, not just being nude. And you know, I think it'd be great if we were more accepting of nudity but in a certain time or place. I think it'd be great if there were more nude beaches for example for people who want to be nude outside their home with people who are okay with seeing them nude.

I think the key element here is the part about feeling *threatened*. Yes, that's one's reaction to the situation, HOWEVER, it's often times justified. The first time I saw a dude jerking off, I was at alone at a bus stop. Was the dude going to jump out of his car and assault me? How was I supposed to know? Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that my reaction was crazy fear. Yes, I was ALSO grossed out, but the feeling that I was being threatened was what made it memorable and a terrible experience.

“How about the right not to be sexually harrassed? And, actually, it already is criminalized to take your penis out in public, so moot point UTV.� – kissmypineapple

I googled sexual harassment definitions. None of the definitions I saw extended the concept to public places. Also, just because taking one’s penis out in public is against the law does not mean it violates pedgehog’s rights.

“They are sexual harassment because the violator is calling attention to their sexual parts in a way that makes people uncomfortable specifically because of their link to sexuality.
Pretty clearly sexual harassment, at least.
Whereas breastfeeding is providing food to a baby. If someone was shaking their boobs on the street in my face, that would probably be sexual harassment in today's culture, but breastfeeding can't be called sexual harassment.� - geeky_girl

So it is sexual harassment because the masturbation calls attention to the sexual nature of the body part? So it would not be sexual harassment, then, if he had simply exposed himself for non-sexual reasons (ex. pissing, or just cooling off)?

There's a difference between someone just being naked, and a man staring at you intently while masturbating. Surely you can see the difference.

And don’t go nuts trying to answer these questions thinking that I am defending the subway wanker. I think what he did was wrong (and that it is not analogous to breastfeeding). Unfortunately, I am afraid that I and others here are using an “I know it when I see it� system of differentiating what would constitute harassment rather than any objectively defined criteria. I also think that it is dangerous not to think that it is one’s right to see only what they want to see in a public place.

Sorry. That should have read, “I also think that it is dangerous to think that it is one’s right to see only what they want to see in a public place.�

It really is sexual harassment though. I mean, come on.

"I wasn't touching her or anything, I was just using her body for my own sexual pleasure, without her consent!"

Sounds like sexual harassment to me.

Noname, correct me if I'm wrong, don't laws regarding harassment of any kind typically rely on the perception of the person being harassed? If I feel threatened by a man waving his penis at me, then he's harassed me, correct? If I don't, then it's just basic public nudity laws at issue, isn't it?

"A hearty hear-hear to all of that, except for one thing: the use of the word "pervert." This word has been and still is used to denigrate anyone with "non-traditional" sexual practices - especially homosexuality, but also using sex toys, non-monogamy, BDSM, or even just oral sex"

dykelawyer,
If pervert is supposed to mean something negative (as it is) wouldnt it simply make more sense to not associate it with the above listed sexual practices, rather than not use the word? It IS perverted (as in twisted) to jerk off in front of a girl, but not to play sex games, ect with one another consensually. We simply have to not use the word to refer to non-perverted acts such as homosexuality and the others youve already listed.

"You know, I can't think of a word, either -- not one that encompasses the notion of people who impose unwanted sexual behavior on others; that includes flashers, gropers, and street harrassers."

I got one...how about PERVERT?

"My word is molester."

Also previously used to associate perfectly normal sexual behavior such as homosexuality to. Should we omit this word also? So has freak, sicko, pedophile,...all the descriptors you would legitimately associate with a sexually deviant person. The problem is associating homosexuality (or other consensual acts) to these words.

Unicron_The_Vagina

How is jerking off supplying sustenance to a dependant child? Breastfeeding is farrr different than visually molesting a bystander. Publicly wacking off is socially deviant behavior and I'm sure the laws make note the difference between nursing an infant and wacking off so a little girl can be traumatized.

"I already granted that they're different. My point remains that laws against either of these actions are unjustified because they amount to imposing criminal penalties for violating arbitrary standards of taste and modesty."

Its the fact that theyre using their genitalia as weapons. Its not simply superficial cultural standards. Theyre deliberately doing it to get a reaction. If you dont react theyll take it to the next level. Honestly, I cant believe how naive your defense is. Also, I think I have a right NOT to see some strangers sexual genitalia - ever- unless I choose to, not to mention child traumatization.

Do you think its okay for a father to jerk off in front of his daughter? If you dont, then I dont know why it would be okay for strangers to subject sexual abuse in front of kids either.

I really do not see public masturbation or even flashing as the same as "nudity"
If I saw a guy walking around naked, it wouldn't really bother me. But when someone is clothed but has their penis out of their pants, that is not "nudity" and it definitely takes on a different tone when it is specifically directed at a particular woman, or quite often girl.

Unicron:

In a lot of states, it is in fact illegal to be naked and/or waving your genitals around. It's called 'indecent exposure'.

The only excuse you have for taking out your dick in public is if it happens to catch fire.

Unicron:

In a lot of states, it is in fact illegal to be naked and/or waving your genitals around in public. It's called 'indecent exposure'.

The only excuse you have for taking out your dick in public is if it happens to catch fire.

Your reaction doesn't count, as YOU are the only one responsible for it.

In other words, rape only hurts when you fight it.

I mean, come on, ladies. Why do get so upset about rape? Rapists only want to share the amazingness of their sexual prowess with you. If you get upset over it, it's just in your head. Stop being so frigid.

Technically, according to the same belief offered by unicron masturbating in front of your kid, and even having them touch it isnt wrong if the kid does so because they are having fun. I mean, if the kid enjoys it, why is it wrong? Its simply having a kid be amused with daddys reaction to external stimulus in a sensitive region of his body. Being that sex isnt dirty (which its not if its consensual) whats wrong with entertaining your daughter with jerking off? Isnt that just cultural superficiality? Why would an adult object to having a grown male jerk off in front of their kid? Or does the theory simply apply to adults? If you object to the parent doing it to the kid, why wouldnt you object to a stranger doing it too? Why would it change if they became different ages such as an adult woman? Helps to use exaggerated examples to expand upon the theory to add other angles to it.

Fuck 'em! The first time i ever saw a penis was in my third grade class when one of the just just whipped it out. It was a bit horrifying.

We do have a name for flashers, gropers, catcallers and peepers, but doesn't mean GLBT, swingers, etc . They're called sex offenders.

This is a valid point though you must be careful here, because couldn't the same argument be used against people who dress to sexy? Show too much leg/boob/whatever?

I understand what you're saying here, but I don't think that breasts or legs should be equated with genitals. I mean, legs, by nature aren't sexual, and men's breasts aren't considered sexual either, and therefore I don't think women's should be. (Granted, I realize that that's not the world we live in, but the unnecessary sexualization of women's bodies is a major problem in my eyes that needs to be fixed.) Just my two cents.

Perhaps we can create a new word?

How about "Public Prick"? It's catchy, it's alliterative, and it's doubly fitting.

"I wasn't touching her or anything, I was just using her body for my own sexual pleasure, without her consent!"

Sounds like sexual harassment to me.

I don't want to sound like I'm defending some of these perverts by posting this, but I feel compelled to point out that I"m not sure this argument is valid when read "as-is".

Because I don't see how just looking at someone is using their body. If that's the case, what about all the men AND women who masturbate while say looking at pictures of celebrities on tv or in a magazine. Or even just when you *think* about someone else when masturbating. Isn't that the same thing? The only difference is the person isn't aware they are being looked at, but I don't see why that should be a criteria.

Again there's definitely a line where it becomes really offensive, and it's really hard for women especially to judge sometimes because we just never know what this guy is going to do, etc. However I still kinda go back to my original point about what he's doing exactly - if he's trying to touch me, talk to me, he's on my property, is following me say, etc., then I think it's definitely a very bad thing. But if some dude was just sitting on his porch naked and wasn't doing any of these things to passerbys, then even if I see him I actually couldn't care less since he isn't affecting me. And to noname's point, I'm not sure we have right to "not see something" when we're in public. If we did I could think of a million bad things people would try to use that right for that would be very bad for women.

Noname, correct me if I'm wrong, don't laws regarding harassment of any kind typically rely on the perception of the person being harassed? If I feel threatened by a man waving his penis at me, then he's harassed me, correct? If I don't, then it's just basic public nudity laws at issue, isn't it? – kissmypineapple

I do not know enough about the law to say for sure if you are correct, but it sounds right to me. But this brings us full circle. If we accept that harassment is in the eye of the beholder than you are opening up the possibility of lots of things being considered harassment by others which we would consider perfectly OK. This is especially true if you further argue, as some have here, that we have the right, even in a public place, not to see things which would offend us.

As I said before, I am not defending the guy on the subway. I want that to be illegal and for him to be punished. I am just wondering if anyone here can define harassment in such a way as to cover what he did without resorting to an ever dangerous “I know it when I see it� classification.

Noname, the definiton of "sexual harassment" is "the making of unwanted and offensive sexual advances or of sexually offensive remarks or acts." I'm not sure why you have trouble applying that to the situations that have been described in this thread.

Misspelled – Please link to where you found that definition. If that is the generally accepted definition, then we are all in some deep shit. Who hasn’t made sexual advances that were rejected (AKA unwanted)? As for the offensive label, who gets to label what is offensive? Is it entirely up to the person receiving the advance of hearing the comment? Who gets to label what is sexual (not forgetting the diversity of kink and fetishes out there)? That brings us back to square one. I wonder if you would support that definition when someone is offended by two men kissing in public. Did they just sexually harass the right wing religious guy walking by on the sidewalk?

I'm coming into this thread a little late, but I'm going to try and make this comment as encompassing as I can, based on the other comments I've been reading.

The difference between nudity and the harassing behaviors of flashing, frottage, and other public masturbation is the intent of those in the latter groups. A great part of the sexual gratification that these people feel is that they are involving strangers in their sexual behavior without their consent. And as we all know, women (and men, too) do not like being a part of someone else's sexual behavior without consent.

Breast feeding, and nude beaches (nudist movement), is not about gaining sexual pleasure. Flashing is. And yes, the suspect's intent is a major part of criminal proceedings.

Physical proximity to the behavior is important, too. Yes, I would not appreciate it if someone masturbated to my picture (found wherever) or to the thought of me. I can be upset in general that it may happen, but since I don't know about it, am not being made a physical participant in it without my consent, it really doesn't overtly affect me. So no, barring other legal issues, I don't think that this phenomenon is or should be punishable. It's not the same thing.

I'm also getting a "what's the big deal? You're not being touched" vibe in some of the comments, too. The big deal is women's feelings of safety. When the jerk ran at Jessica, she felt unsafe. He was threatening to touch her, to involve her in his activities against her will. Flashing and being masturbated at is threatening to women because we don't often know if this behavior will escalate. This is assault. According to NOLO, assault is, "A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault."

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/22542B6F-FEDB-450A-889A82A49EA50CEB/alpha/A/

Here, women are feeling violated, threatened. And yes, that's a crime and should be punished as such. Women have a right to feel safe in public.

Honeybee: "Again there's definitely a line where it becomes really offensive, and it's really hard for women especially to judge sometimes because we just never know what this guy is going to do, etc."

That's the whole point. If a person is willing to masturbate in public, and engage another person (via eye contact, touching, or vocalizing), then how could we predict what this person is going to do? This is not normative behavior (sociologically speaking). There is no predicting how far this person will take the behavior. That's why it's worse than, say, breast feeding or dressing provocatively. It's threatening to the other person who is involved without consenting.

Misspelled – Please link to where you found that definition. If that is the generally accepted definition, then we are all in some deep shit. Who hasn’t made sexual advances that were rejected (AKA unwanted)? As for the offensive label, who gets to label what is offensive? Is it entirely up to the person receiving the advance of hearing the comment? Who gets to label what is sexual (not forgetting the diversity of kink and fetishes out there)? That brings us back to square one. I wonder if you would support that definition when someone is offended by two men kissing in public. Did they just sexually harass the right wing religious guy walking by on the sidewalk?

It's the American Heritage Dictionary definition, minus the usual bullshit qualification about how it "especially" applies to supervisors in the workplace.

Wow, there's disagreement between individuals about what constitutes an offensive or inappropriate act, especially when sex is involved? Stop the presses.

It's a working definition. It gets the job done. If we want to protect anybody, then the laws surrounding issues of harassment must be built around the feelings of the person being harassed. That's the only way to address the core of the issue, which is people's right not to have their safety and privacy violated against their will. We work around the ambiguity of personal interactions in countless areas of law, and yet for some reason no one whines that we need to reform the definition of "coercion" because after all, who's to say what constitutes an implied threat? Why is the possibility of a misunderstanding always treated as some kind of unprecedented horror when it comes to sexual harassment and sexual assault, when surely any adult can conclude that sometimes there's just not going to be a way to be certain of the intent of an accused criminal and/or the legitimacy of the alleged victim's fear, no matter what the nature of the crime? From a feminist perspective, the answer is, "Because we live in a male-dominated society that has shown a customary willingness to compromise sexual safety and independence for women in favor of securing sexual gratification and convenience for men, and there is an automatic backlash to almost any attempt to rectify this." In other words, I think your concern in this case reflects either a lack of thought about the basic realities of this aspect of our justice system, or a disproportionate preoccupation with protecting people from accusations of sexual harassment.

I know you've said you're not defending people who sexually harass in this way, and it's true you haven't said anything beyond that there's ambiguity with regard to what can actually be counted as harassment. But considering that that ambiguity applies to any number of other crimes, and that hedging about the vagueness of human interaction is a classic tactic used to illegitimize the right of victims of this type of behavior to feel violated, and that you've come here and asked the other posters to come up with a flawlessly functioning definition of "harassment," which you yourself seem unable to produce (you know, because it's impossible), you can see where some of us might get a little defensive.

Because I don't see how just looking at someone is using their body. If that's the case, what about all the men AND women who masturbate while say looking at pictures of celebrities on tv or in a magazine. Or even just when you *think* about someone else when masturbating. Isn't that the same thing? The only difference is the person isn't aware they are being looked at, but I don't see why that should be a criteria.

Yes, that's the only difference and it's a huge one. If a guy masturbates to my image without my knowledge, then it's no big deal. What I don't know doesn't hurt me.

When he masturbates in front of me, making it clear that he's getting sexual gratification from me without my consent and broadcasting that fact in my face, it constitutes harassment. Is it really that hard for you to understand?

Its surprising to see so many defenses of the 'perv on the street' to do whatever he wants because of the belief that if I get offended its simply cultural taste, and that it doesnt seem to have any justification beyond that. Its a bit irksome when feminists talk this way.

Carry a pistol and if necessary blow the motherfucker away.

out wrong,
Now THATS what I'M for!

Carry a pistol and if necessary blow the motherfucker away.

'Cept for the 'mother' - fucker part. Why not father (or brother) fucker.

@GopherII

Point taken. How about "coward" instead?

What about scum?

Misspelled – There is no need to be defensive. I was illustrating the ambiguity of the concept and how those ambiguities could be misused if we are not careful. As long as you can see the potential slippery slope, particularly when people start throwing around their supposed right to see only what they wish, I feel like I have made my point. What, by the way, do you say to ellestar, who seems to be placing much more importance on intent than you?

Misspelled – One more thing: I agree that these types of ambiguities can be found in many legal concepts. Sexual harassment was brought up by others earlier in the thread, so that is the one we are discussing, here.

noname, you realize slippery slopes are a fallacy?

Public indecency is illegal already, and we haven't yet outlawed short skirts and low-cut shirts because some people may consider it indecent. What makes you think that they're going to do it now because feminists complain about people masturbating in public?

Noname --

So you've made it your mission to interrupt discussions like these in order to make sure the people involved have put the proper amount of thought into what's happened to them before concluding that they were harassed? That's decent of you.

If the danger of this type of uncertainty is a foregone conclusion, then why assume that the people here don't realize that, and that we're all a few nasty incidents away from going off the deep end and demanding a ban on the public doing of Things That Bother Us? Why insist that the posters here seem to be implying that they have an unwritten "right to see only what they want to see in a public place," when in fact the accounts posted on this thread and the original public-masturbation thread have recounted CRIMES of which the posters were the victims, and related their feelings of fear, helplessness and violation OVER AND OVER AGAIN? Have they not made it pretty clear that they have sufficient grounds to classify this as harassment? What leads you to believe that it's necessary for you to intervene and make sure no one's getting carried away?

And I don't see that ellestar is "placing much more importance on intent" tham I am. She said that the intent of a person flashing or masturbating in public is different from that of someone breastfeeding or practicing nudism in that the latter behaviors have nothing to do with sexual gratification and don't involve the person viewing them in a sexual activity. That much should be obvious. She also said that what makes harassment a crime is that it causes the victim to feel unsafe and violated. That should be obvious too, but apparently it's not.

And finally, I'm not saying that intent isn't important. I'm saying that it can't be our predominant concern when dealing with harassment. This shit has to stop. That has to be the first priority. Our legal process provides a great deal of protection for the defendant in any criminal case. Intent will come up, I promise. The prosecutor has to show intent for a defendant to be convicted. In the meantime, can we not diminish the importance of the impact these crimes have on the victims? Hasn't that job been seen to pretty thoroughly in the past?

noname:

Here is how I "know it when I see it". The intent for the act is to be seen. You can usually tell if he is looking at you and smiling while rubbing his junk.

and to the "sympathizers"
The reason it is particularly upsetting is because, how do I know he will stop there? I know someone else already brought this up, but I can say that when I had some guy whacking off in his car while I was jogging, I was afraid that he would just wait for me to turn onto a less busy street, like the one I live on, and assault me. So I ran into a pizza restaurant where some friends worked and called someone to come get me. It's threatening because I don't know if it will stop there.

Um... love this. I go to Pace University in Manhattan and there have always been sexual assaults around campus and recently a man went up to a girl and felt her genitals over her clothes right around our campus. Then my professors and I came to find out there is no realy rape crisis center or anywhere where women or men can go to for help in regards to sexual assault. And hello! We live in NYC... I love this friday feminist fuck you because it is so important to address the issue, and bring attention to these perpetrators! Fuck Yea Jessica!!

From the Weekly Feminist Reader:

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1845257120080418?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews

Still don't see why I worry about how current definitions of sexual harassment might be abused?

Misspelled – Interrupt? I didn’t interrupt this discussion. I joined it when I responded to posts already in the thread.

You joined the discussion by asking pedgehog to explain what rights of hers were being violated when men masturbated at her against her will -- as if the answer weren't incredibly fucking obvious -- and have since explained that, basically, you were just testing her, and the others who have posted similar stories. Because you had to be sure that the women here understood that offensiveness is subjective. That is interrupting. It distracts from the conversation at hand, and it's condescending and antagonistic and wholly unnecessary when you're dealing with adults who don't need to have the obvious pointed out to them.

I don't know if you're addressing me or MLEmac with that link, but a) the article doesn't include the jury's explanation of its verdict, which I'm sure you'll agree is a pretty significant chunk of the story to go without, and b) assuming the woman's testimony was true, which apparently is the jury's opinion, it's not at all far-fetched to think that this woman could have honestly felt harassed by this man's actions. If you were a woman and had experienced this type of thing with any frequency, you wouldn't need to be told that. I'm not sure you understand that it's more than icky or annoying or pathetic. In many cases, it's fucking scary. Where-should-I-hit-this-guy-if-he-were-to-suddenly-grab-me scary, what's-the-fastest-way-out-of-here-as-soon-as-I've-done-what-I'm-doing scary. I've never been masturbated at that I've noticed, but I've been yelled at and stared at and followed and smirked at and had "suggestions" and "compliments" muttered at me out of the sides of the mouths of strange men, in crowded public places where the people around didn't seem to notice or care, and in isolated places where there wouldn't necessarily have been help if I had needed it. It started when I was twelve. Twelve. Which, relative to many other girls' experiences, isn't even that young. If I was sitting on a train and a guy who had previously sat close enough to make me uncomfortable came back and stared directly at me for my entire trip, I would absolutely worry that he was planning on doing something more, especially if I was traveling alone. I don't know any woman who wouldn't. It's learned behavior. We're not just being oversensitive. We're trying not to get groped or assaulted or kidnapped or raped. Men need to understand that, because women need to be able to get on a bus or stop at a gas station for directions or walk across the street without having the shit scared out of us for no reason.

I understand the nastiness of guys taking up-skirt pics and things of that nature.

But, (in my opinion) the silence of feminists regarding these handful of court-cases across the U.S. where women (so called feminist-thinking women) are trying to get public nudity laws changed so that women can choose to go anywhere topless that men do.
If you hate these up-the-skirt pic-takers or whatever that's fine, I can get behind that.

But, don't you think it's an extremely unsettling double-standard that simultaneously women are fighting to go topless?

If men are nasty fucks for treating women as visual candy, what does it mean when women try to treat themselves as visual candy?

Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with taking pictures at a public beach of people you have no relation to. You're an asshole no doubt, but I don't think it should be a crime. For the simple reason that there's a reasonable expectation that an up-the-skirt view is private.

But if you're in a bikini on a public beach, the person is only preserving the image you were making publicly available.

I don't really understand all the hooplah of publishing on the internet these up-the-skirt pics. It seems to center around the non-consent part of it.

Why not watch a girls-gone-wild tape or something. I'm much more turned on by the concept of a woman consenting to sex (or nudity) or even initiating it, then this up-the-skirt thing.
It's wierd.

"But, don't you think it's an extremely unsettling double-standard that simultaneously women are fighting to go topless?"

Women going topless where men go topless is hardly unsettling nor a double standard to me.

"If men are nasty fucks for treating women as visual candy, what does it mean when women try to treat themselves as visual candy?"

Their business, like men going topless on the street in Hawaii, with our pervasive beach mentality. It is necessary for some businesses to require shirts and shoes for entry or service.

"Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with taking pictures at a public beach of people you have no relation to."

How about simple manners, like "May I take your photo?" In Japan and in Hawaii, I have seen many men with professional level photo equipment who take photos of women and children in public at parades, sporting events, or at the beach or pool. I have also seen the product of such public picture taking in adult magazines or on adult websites. Why are these images intended for an adult audience if they are so innocent? Have you heard of such as model release forms or compensating the subjects of one's photos in exchange for rights for use of their images?

"It is necessary for some businesses to require shirts and shoes for entry or service."

Also, some form of sufficiently modest covering for their lower bodies, or "no swimsuits."

Choosing to go topless is not treating yourself as "visual candy"
Women don't want to go topless in public so they can get oggled and harassed.
Women want to be allowed to go topless in public (at least this is my understanding) because men are allowed to, it is precisely the sexualization of their breasts that they are objecting too.
I have never heard of a case where a woman went to court so that she could go topless because she wanted to show off her spectacular knockers (and even if you were to provide me with a link to such a case, that would absolutely not negate the fact that that is not what the vast majority of these cases are about)
Where I live, you are allowed to go out in public topless as a woman, but I have yet to see someone do so, quite possibly because they are aware of the responses they would elicit.

Jabes, why do you assume that a woman who would go topless wants to be eye candy, but a man who goes topless does not? Do you think women dress just for the viewing pleasure of others?

Maine has an interesting, and useful view of perverts, as I have described in the Weekly Feminist Reader thread:

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2008/04/should-visual-sexual-aggression-be.html

Please take note of the debate (see blogger's links) over how journalists portrayed this bill,

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/NEWS/804060343/-1/NEWS01&sfad=1

or what this bill actually is about. Again, I do not know why this protection is only proposed for those aged 14 and under.

Misspelled –

1. I think our conversation has shown that it is not obvious which of pedgehog’s rights were violated.

2. As for the Italy case, I think it demonstrates the danger in depending so heavily on the perception of the accuser. You really think it is OK to arrest someone for looking at someone else in a public space? Wow. Just because someone feels threatened does not mean that someone else threatened them, and there is nothing inherently sexual about a look, anyway.

On really hot days I would love to be able to go topless and be seen as topless men are seen. I don't think that'll ever happen though no matter what laws are changed. It is quite amazing the difference there is in our culture between being topless and wearing a very skimpy bikini top.

1. Listen.

There is a natural right not to be made to feel unsafe in public spaces just for being there. There is a natural right not to have one's privacy invaded. There is a natural right not to be involved in a sexual act against one's will. There is a natural right not to be required to do double duty as a human being and as an object of erotica just for stepping out of the house.

I don't really care if that's not obvious to you -- it SHOULD be.

2. Again, we don't know the details of the Italy case. And we're not talking about arresting "someone" for "looking at someone else in a public space." We're talking about arresting a man for staring intently at a woman who doesn't know him and who appears to have been traveling alone, in a venue notorious for putting women in danger of sexual harassment and assault. As I've tried to point out to you, it's a natural reaction for the woman in that situation to worry that she's about to be attacked, and I don't think it's nuts to expect men to understand that and not put women through that kind of fear just so they can satisfy whatever passing urge it is one satisfies by staring at strange women on the train. Maybe his intentions were innocent, and maybe she exaggerated the extent of his actions. False testimonies and wrongful convictions do happen, and I don't know too much about the Italian legal process. I just don't think you should dismiss this story as automatically ridiculous. It's not.

A male:

You did some serious deconstructing of my comments.
Here you state:
"Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with taking pictures at a public beach of people you have no relation to."

How about simple manners, like "May I take your photo?"
-------------------------
But my original post stated:
Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with taking pictures at a public beach of people you have no relation to. YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE NO DOUBT, but I don't think it should be a crime.

I'm willing to retract the double standard comment on further thought.

I guess it's not a double standard for the simple reason that a women topless in public is giving her consent, while an up-the-skirt pic obviously is not.

Initially it seemed to me that they were diametrical opposites because one is trying to increase modesty of women, and the other is trying to decrease it. But the consent factor kind of changes that.

But since we're on the topic of topless women, my feelings are the female breast is sexualized. There's no escaping it. I just don't think it's very smart to change public decency laws so that women can go topless.
Does it really matter what the intent of a woman who goes topless is? The visual impact is going to be the same regardless if her motives were to oggled or not.

"But since we're on the topic of topless women, my feelings are the female breast is sexualized. There's no escaping it."

And since we are on the topic, I read about nudism or naturism, and found to my surprise, that there are videos of nude beaches and clothing optional beaches on a certain popular website, which have been neither flagged nor promptly removed.

I watched a handful of videos in their entirety. Oddly, I did not consider them sexual despite everything being visible as visitors tanned, ate, danced, played drums, played volleyball, ran, sat or swam. Nor was there any evidence (other than at the so called gay friendly hookup beach on Maui) that the visitors considered the setting or situation sexual. Video recordings aside, people, children included, seemed to be behaving as any beachgoers I have seen in Hawaii would.

The same appears to be true of a number of European beaches where women commonly go topless, as well as established nudist communities.

Japan does not have a modern tradition (there is an old one) of being unclothed at the beach. However, millions of Japanese have no shame appearing nude before strangers (or family, friends and neighbors) at public baths, or established spa or hot spring resorts, even outdoors, or where mixed bathing is allowed. Family baths at home also remain common. Granted, grown children probably do not bathe with family of the opposite sex.

Why the difference between these people and the average Americans? I believe if nudity were commonplace, or out of a sexual context (as often seen in the hospital during exams, treatments, baths, cleanings, catheterization, trips to the toilet, and changing), it would no longer be sexualized. Cleaning out adult diapers, changing postpartum pads, measuring "output", collecting samples, or helping people on and off toilets is hardly sexy regardless of how the rest of them looks.

Well this is what I think Male:

If these naturists can get together and "be closer to nature" (or whatever) by being nude in a nonsexual way, that's great!
But they're all meeting in a specified place with the same purpose and same tacit consent.

That wouldn't be true in some beach suburb. If I were in some town with my children (if I had any) and they saw a topless woman (even if it was legal), I think I would feel the way most would on this board if they were going to a college football game and saw some of those pro-life protesters with the giant 6' x 12' posters of aborted fetuses. That's a pretty damn grisly image to show children! I think public toplessness is just as unwise.

But I do agree that Europeans have a much more mature attitude to nudity.

Misspelled-

1. What is a natural right? If one has the “natural right� not to feel unsafe in public places what would you say to someone who feels unsafe near people of a certain race or gender?

2. I think the Italy story is ridiculous. I am surprised you would consider looking at someone to be a crime, but I guess you are entitled to your opinion.
unsafe

1. What do you think I would say? Do you honestly think any court in this country would conflate masturbating at a stranger with simply existing in a certain body? It's a reasonable logical progression from "Holy shit, that man is jerking off right there in the street" to "That man might grope me if I go near him." It is not a reasonable logical progression from "Holy shit, that man has brown skin" to "That man might grope me if I go near him." It's not that hard to figure out.

And if you're going to dispute the concept of natural rights, then there's no point in even trying to have a conversation about an issue like harassment.

2. I don't know what else to say to you on this topic. You can frame the case as a story about "someone looking at someone" as much as you want; I read the article, I told you why the details are important, I tried to explain what it can feel like to be a woman in this situation, and I even conceded that the woman may have been lying or exaggerating even though the court apparently found that she was telling the truth. You've ignored all of that. I guess I can't help you.