Should the UK pay a divorce bill from the EU ?

[EFLImpudence]

And you've not shown me that asking someone on a date these days can offend someone. Isn't that what this started as?

No one suggested that one question and a refusal was an offence - but you said that should be the end of the matter.

Is he, therefore, not allowed to ever speak to you again?
Is he not allowed to "try again"? If yes, then how many times?

Have you never heard "faint heart never won fair lady"? Totally outmoded?


So, what constitutes you being alarmed and distressed?
Remember - no improper behaviour at any time.

 

[blightymam]

No one suggested that one question and a refusal was an offence - but you said that should be the end of the matter.

Is he, therefore, not allowed to ever speak to you again?
Is he not allowed to "try again"? If yes, then how many times?

Have you never heard "faint heart never won fair lady"? Totally outmoded?


So, what constitutes you being alarmed and distressed?
Remember - no improper behaviour at any time.

OK, just imagine I'm your 7 year old kid.
Dad, can I have £50 for sweets please?
No.
Dad, can I have £50 for sweets please?
No.
Etc etc.

Would be annoying, pestering and unwanted wouldn't it? Now add to that pestering the feeling of awkwardness that comes with a, asking someone out, and b, saying no. If someone says no to a date, is it said with flirting or any body language that makes someone think that no doesn't mean no does it? So what would give the 'askee' the impression that it's ok to keep asking?

Why would anyone not be allowed to talk to a lad or lady who'd said no again? If someone's happy to talk then great. If not, then no, hard to talk to someone who doesn't want to converse.

What makes me alarmed and/or distressed without improper behaviour? Well, nothing. Why would it? A chap asking and asking and asking is improper behaviour tho in most situations.

 

[EFLImpudence]

If someone says no to a date, is it said with flirting or any body language that makes someone think that no doesn't mean no does it? So what would give the 'askee' the impression that it's ok to keep asking?

We don't know. That is the problem.
Most blokes can't tell when flirting is just flirting because that's what you do all the time or flirting is flirting because you're interested.
That would be "asker".

As for "eye-contact"; that's another load of rubbish.

Why would anyone not be allowed to talk to a lad or lady who'd said no again?

I don't know. You said "No" was the end of the matter.

If someone's happy to talk then great. If not, then no, hard to talk to someone who doesn't want to converse.

So, is willingness to talk a sign you have changed your mind or just doing what women do?

What makes me alarmed and/or distressed without improper behaviour? Well, nothing. Why would it?

So, no one ever gets into trouble for that, then?

A chap asking and asking and asking is improper behaviour tho in most situations.

Is it? Could you explain the difference from the above? Probably not.

That is the problem.

 

[blightymam]

Going back to your comments about women going to the police for being asked out on a date, I never said that anyone had done that. My contention was that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and political correctness is all the rage nowdays. Not every girls will see a pass as being an offence, and not every young bloke will recognise the signals, either positive or negative that a girl gives off. Society is not so forgiving nowadays for the youngs sometimes pathetic attempts at learning social graces.

See, I don't see updating the way we treat women as being political correctness. You make it sound like a bad thing with your choice of words. If there is a shift in attitude towards women and dating I see it as a good thing.

No, not every young bloke (or girl) will recognise the signals which is why no should mean no and this is important to learn. The dating game has always been tough, I don't think it's any harder now tbh.

With sexual harrasment, a women (and a man nowadays) only has to feel offended, rather than take it as a compliment that someone actualy wants them, and it has to be investigated. Unfortunately, the police have now been told that they have to beleive the complainant, rather than investigate to see if there has been a justifiable case.

So what do you mean about the above then? You mention that a woman (or man) are feeling offended for being wanted by someone else and the offence has to be investigated. You then talk about the police in the next line.

What I was saying that unless someone IS being offended and or sexually harassed why would they go to the police? You seem, in the same sentence, to either say people get offended over nothing and go to the police, or that being wanted, no matter how they feel should be a compliment.

 

[blightymam]

So, is willingness to talk a sign you have changed your mind or just doing what women do?



That is the problem.

So are women not allowed to talk to men without men thinking that they are interested in them romantically? Blimey, I wonder if all my male mates think I want to jump their bones?!
With the greatest respect, I think you're a bit out of touch!

We don't know. That is the problem.
Most blokes can't tell when flirting is just flirting because that's what you do all the time or flirting is flirting because you're interested.

Then it's even more important to hear the word no than to second guess incorrectly.

 

[EFLImpudence]

So are women not allowed to talk to men without men thinking that they are interested in them romantically?

Is that not the case?

Blimey, I wonder if all my male mates think I want to jump their bones?!

They probably think it's not out of the question.

With the greatest respect, I think you're a bit out of touch!

I clearly am, however, I don't think you understand much better.


I don't think we have progressed very far in the debate.
It still seems to down to you (women) when the situation is beyond your liking and becomes alarming and stressful even if the asker is doing exactly the same as the first time.
Offence is in the mind of the beholder.

Platonic friendships between a man and a woman only exist when one of them has romantic feelings for the other.

OK, just imagine I'm your 7 year old kid.
Dad, can I have £50 for sweets please?
No.
Dad, can I have £50 for sweets please?
No.
Etc etc.

I didn't answer that as I thought it silly, however, I have since thought.

If the kid asks nicely once, or twice, a week, it would not be stressful and one week when I was a bit flushed, I might say "Yes".
I would not consider it appropriate to punish her nor prohibit her from asking for other things in the future.

 

[blightymam]

Is that not the case?

They probably think it's not out of the question.

I clearly am, however, I don't think you understand much better.

I don't think we have progressed very far in the debate.
It still seems to down to you (women) when the situation is beyond your liking and becomes alarming and stressful even if the asker is doing exactly the same as the first time.
Offence is in the mind of the beholder, however to carry on deliberately causing offence isn't helpful, esp in sexual situations.

Platonic friendships between a man and a woman only exist when one of them has romantic feelings for the other.
I didn't answer that as I thought it silly, however, I have since thought.

If the kid asks nicely once, or twice, a week, it would not be stressful and one week when I was a bit flushed, I might say "Yes".
I would not consider it appropriate to punish her nor prohibit her from asking for other things in the future.

Where does a woman get alarmed or stressed when asked out for the first time? I never said that - this was my point with you two. No sane woman would be offended and I have said that all along. I really would like to hear of some examples of someone being offended being asked out and perhaps going to the police.

We have established that offence is in the 'mind of the beholder'.

I also think that we are of a different generation and viewpoint (mars v venus) we will never agree. I don't agree with repeated advances when they've been already refused. It's not winning a fair lady, it's being a royal pain in the backside. Women (like men) appreciate being listened to and views respected so to keep asking despite everything doesn't work on a whole. In my own mind I would actually see it as a warning sign to keep away from this weirdo.

What I just don't get is your admittance that blokes don't have a clue with signals and flirting etc, but won't listen to a woman when she says no? Why is that?

 

[EFLImpudence]

What I just don't get is your admittance that blokes don't have a clue with signals and flirting etc, but won't listen to a woman when she says no? Why is that?

They do listen when she says no but may misinterpret the signals and flirting.

However, you said that the first "No" should be the end of the matter, and subsequently it may not be.



All this time I have been trying to get across that an offence dependent on the views of the recipient can vary significantly and is not an ideal situation.

 

[blightymam]

They do listen when she says no but may misinterpret the signals and flirting.

However, you said that the first "No" should be the end of the matter, and subsequently it may not be.



All this time I have been trying to get across that an offence dependent on the views of the recipient can vary significantly and is not an ideal situation.

Why wouldn't it be the end of the matter? Why do you think it's ok to keep on the advances?

And I've not disagreed with you on a person being offended, and yes, people differ. But I have said that to be offended enough for someone to go to the police, like doggit said, would be sorted out by the police. Surely?

I do not see how someone would be offended by being asked out once! But repeated advances that are unwanted and the person's wishes are not listened to, then it becomes a problem. A problem completely made by the 'askers', not the person refusing. It's not a case of the person saying no being offended easily. This is why no should be no - that is what the person who said no meant. And without them telling you otherwise then it should be taken on face value. No second guessing, no getting it wrong, no risk of offending. Everyone happy.

 

[noseall]

As for "eye-contact"; that's another load of rubbish.

No it isn't.

 

[motorbiking]

The last 3 pages seem to be based on a total misunderstanding of the the law.

Sexual offences are fairly well defined, harassment is completely different and you only have to read the very short act to understand what it's getting at.

sexual harassment in the workplace is really where sensitivity is required. But even then there are many ways of asking repeatedly in a compliant way.

Rape is a very serious crime, I personally don't think it's right for date rape or relationship rape. If you want more prosecutions you need a different crime.

It's not right that a person who failed to get consent from his drunken date is treated the same as a person hiding in the bushes to pounce.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Platonic friendships between a man and a woman only exist when one of them has romantic feelings for the other.

I did not feel the need to contribute to this discussion. Just happy to read the various viewpoints, even if I may have disagreed with some.

But the comment above is absolute nonsense.
Just apply that comment to two or more people of the same sex, and see how ridiculous it becomes.
Two or more people of differing sexes can have exactly the same sort of relationship.

 

[empip]

Meanwhile back at the ranch :-
Should the UK pay a divorce bill from the EU ?
Possibly only the net amount we could be reasonably expected to 'pay in' during the remaining MFF (Multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 European Commission) which I guess we are deemed to have agreed to, probably somewhere between £9 and £16 billion ??

-0-

 

[Corgigrouch GTi]

I did not feel the need to contribute to this discussion. Just happy to read the various viewpoints, even if I may have disagreed with some.

But the comment above is absolute nonsense.
Just apply that comment to two or more people of the same sex, and see how ridiculous it becomes.
Two or more people of differing sexes can have exactly the same sort of relationship.

Inflatable Ingrid never says no eh, wahabi DIY?

 

[Corgigrouch GTi]

Meanwhile back at the ranch :-
Should the UK pay a divorce bill from the EU ?
Possibly only the net amount we could be reasonably expected to 'pay in' during the remaining MFF (Multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 European Commission) which I guess we are deemed to have agreed to, probably somewhere between £9 and £16 billion ??

-0-

Perhaps, but in the meantime, since we are leaving the EU are we not entitled to our share of the material assets?