Unrequited

[Victor]

Would you have sympathy for someone (single) who is trying to communicate on the internet (not romantically) with a married woman, when she has no desire to
speak with him? She knows that he likes her much.
I have spoken to several people who only have sympathy for the woman.
Why is it that a man may be accused of" harassment" even with good intentions but women are rarely accused of bothering men?
Both sexes can be equally sensitive and often men are hurt as well, but they don't like admitting it.

 

[AZ Jim]

Dude, do yourself a favor and leave the lady alone. It's not a matter of "picking on the man" here as it is just being respectful of her desire to be let alone. Move on. You didn't specify your age but you sound young.

 

[applecruncher]

I don’t think sympathy, sensitivity, or gender are the issues in such situations.

When someone (married or single) has made it clear they are not interested in communication with a person, the other party should leave them alone. To continue to contact that person IS harassment.

Whoever the person is needs to leave the woman alone and move on.

 

[hollydolly]

No-one should feel to be made uncomfortable regardless of the genders, whether romantically or otherwise to speak with any other person, especially a total stranger on the internet. No...means NO...not interested, back off... and that should be accepted unquestioningly.

So no, I have no sympathy with anyone who insists on pestering someone to speak with them when the other person has made it clear they're not interested in any communication!!

And just as an aside...women do the same with men...it's not all one sided. I have male friends who are members of all different social medias who get the big come on from women..loud and clear when they've made it clear they are married/attached/not interested...and they are ignored..and very often the perpetrators are married or attached themselves too

Doesn't matter who you are or who you wish was your friend...you cannot stalk people ..and that is exactly what it is..on the internet or in real life!! I've had it happen to me and it's not only very annoying, it can also be very frightening!!

 

[fureverywhere]

There used to be this guy at my old job. I could have made a big stink about harassment but mostly he just creeped me out. He knew I was happily married and I'm pretty sure he had a wife as well. Maybe he was just trying to strut the remains of his vanity? He was maybe in his mid-sixties and might have been a looker twenty or thirty years back. But certainly not my type regardless. He'd say these weird things like " Well if you were my girlfriend...". Just ewwwww, I made a point to avoid him whenever possible.

 

[applecruncher]

And just as an aside...women do the same with men...

True. I’ve known of several cases where a woman will keep calling a man who wants no more to do with her...or worse, show up at his apt/office.

 

[AZ Jim]

Victor, the point is be a good guy and let the lady breathe without your harassment (and it sounds like that is what it is). She is a married gal, has a husband and that she befriended you does not present a green light for you to march through the intersection and make her suffer for her kindness. LEAVE HERE ALONE.

 

[imp]

How do you-all know with certainty that Victor is not asking on behalf of someone else? imp

 

[tnthomas]

How do you-all know with certainty that Victor is not asking on behalf of someone else? imp

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck..

See: Duck Test

 

[SeaBreeze]

Would you have sympathy for someone (single) who is trying to communicate on the internet (not romantically) with a married woman, when she has no desire to
speak with him? She knows that he likes her much.
I have spoken to several people who only have sympathy for the woman.
Why is it that a man may be accused of" harassment" even with good intentions but women are rarely accused of bothering men?
Both sexes can be equally sensitive and often men are hurt as well, but they don't like admitting it.

No, I have no sympathy for a man who insists on communicating with a married woman when she has made it known she doesn't want to speak with him. I'm a happily married woman, and if some guy continued to harass me when I told him to leave me alone, I'd be very angry and put a stop to it somehow, or my husband would.

I've heard of cases of women stalking men and not leaving them alone too. It doesn't matter which sex is doing the harassing, when somebody says back off, it's wrong to continue attempts to communicate. I don't care how sensitive the violator is, I only care about the victim, man or woman.

 

[Shalimar]

Agreed. My sympathy is for the person being harassed.

 

[Butterfly]

Agreed. My sympathy is for the person being harassed.

Mine, too.

 

[imp]

See: Duck Test

wellllllll, benefit of doubt still applies, no? Given if I were the malingerer, I would post similarly, masking emotional effects as much as possible, just as he did. imp

 

[Aurora]

I have sympathy for the man in this case because it is not harrassment
if he only is talking about himself and says nothing suggestive.

These posters are totally overreacting! Sometimes the need to talk
courteously, assuming, is more important than slightly annoying someone.

 

[hollydolly]

I have sympathy for the man in this case because it is not harrassment
if he only is talking about himself and says nothing suggestive.

These posters are totally overreacting! Sometimes the need to talk
courteously, assuming, is more important than slightly annoying someone.

What?...sorry...I'm not sure I've read this properly, just to be clear in case I have this wrong.. ....are you suggesting that someone's need or desire to talk to anyone they choose takes precedence over the feelings of the person who has specifically asked not to have a stranger make conversation with them?

 

[Aurora]

That is exactly what I am saying, assuming that the message is polite, non threatening nor rude and does not incite riots.

In this case, it is not a stranger. Freedom of speech guarantees this right.
The other person does not have to listen of course. This opinion has been defended long ago
as a morally correct or acceptable guiding rule. I can quote you the classic book and the famous author J.S. Mill.
In our society, we have been so indoctrinated to think that someone else's feelings or toleration is more important than anything, It is not.
but again as long as the speech is not suggesting a crime or taking away another's freedoms. I agree with Mill and stand by my position.

 

[Shalimar]

Interesting point of view. Cultural differences regarding freedom of speech vs rights of privacy/personal boundaries.

 

[hollydolly]

That is exactly what I am saying, assuming that the message is polite, non threatening nor rude and does not incite riots.

In this case, it is not a stranger. Freedom of speech guarantees this right.
The other person does not have to listen of course. This opinion has been defended long ago
as a morally correct or acceptable guiding rule. I can quote you the classic book and the famous author J.S. Mill.
In our society, we have been so indoctrinated to think that someone else's feelings or toleration is more important than anything, It is not.
but again as long as the speech is not suggesting a crime or taking away another's freedoms. I agree with Mill and stand by my position.

Certainly freedom of speech is a right, but only in so far that it's not causing undue distress to another person , particularity a person who has asked for no contact ....and in particular this situation where a single man feels it's his right to demand communication with a married woman who has expressed ''no desire' to speak to him!!

very , very odd way of thinking IMO...and clearly I'm in the majority!!

 

[applecruncher]

I have sympathy for the man in this case because it is not harrassment
if he only is talking about himself and says nothing suggestive.

These posters are totally overreacting! Sometimes the need to talk
courteously, assuming, is more important than slightly annoying someone.

Huh?? It doesn’t matter if it’s a stranger or not. Bothering someone who has made it clear they want nothing to do with you IS harassment – even if you’ve known each other for decades. Aurora, have you ever heard of restraining orders? Ever heard of nutjobs who stalk celebrities?

A person’s “need”/desire to talk to another person is NOT important and it's NOT justification for harassment.

The married woman's husband might have to help the pest to understand. :wink1:

That is exactly what I am saying, assuming that the message is polite, non threatening nor rude and does not incite riots.

In this case, it is not a stranger. Freedom of speech guarantees this right.
The other person does not have to listen of course. This opinion has been defended long ago
as a morally correct or acceptable guiding rule. I can quote you the classic book and the famous author J.S. Mill.
In our society, we have been so indoctrinated to think that someone else's feelings or toleration is more important than anything, It is not.
but again as long as the speech is not suggesting a crime or taking away another's freedoms. I agree with Mill and stand by my position.

I'm quite well-read but I've never heard of this "famous" Mill person or his/her "classic" book, but clearly (for whatever reasons) you're choosing to attach your own interpretation.

 

[AZ Jim]

Freedom of speech guarantees this right.

Very broad subject and not paramount in this case at all.

the speech is not suggesting a crime or taking away another's freedoms

It IS taking away her freedom to be free of harassment (yes, once she has made it clear she does not want the contact, it IS harassment.) In some areas it could even be construed to be stalking.

 

[Butterfly]

This isn't like a chat with someone at the grocery store. It is evidently a person pursuing someone online who doesn't want to be pursued. That's harassment in my book.

 

[applecruncher]

This isn't like a chat with someone at the grocery store. It is evidently a person pursuing someone online who doesn't want to be pursued. That's harassment in my book.

She should block him and not respond at all. Keep copies of her request to leave her alone, and his persistent efforts...just in case.

 

[Shalimar]

Just the idea that someone would feel entitled to converse with someone who has made it plain they wish to be left alone makes me feel very uncomfortable. That they would want sympathy over being rejected creeps me out.

 

[SeaBreeze]

Would you have sympathy for someone (single) who is trying to communicate on the internet (not romantically) with a married woman, when she has no desire to
speak with him? She knows that he likes her much.

I have sympathy for the man in this case because it is not harrassment
if he only is talking about himself and says nothing suggestive.

These posters are totally overreacting! Sometimes the need to talk
courteously, assuming, is more important than slightly annoying someone.

I disagree completely. There is absolutely no way anyone can claim that this in not harassment. He obviously isn't just talking about the weather here, as quoted in the original post "She knows that he likes her much".

If I know some man is enamored with me, and won't back off and leave me alone when I tell him to, you better believe I will do what is necessary to take care of that stalker, even if it involves recording and documenting the harassers conversations and contacting the authorities. I don't care if I'm married or not.

In a normal situation, you tell the guy to leave you alone or else, if he's reasonable that's the end of the pursuit and stalking. He moves on to another victim, or finds himself a cooperative soul-mate. Nobody, man or woman, should be subjected to this kind of abusive harassment...period.

 

[mitchezz]

That is exactly what I am saying, assuming that the message is polite, non threatening nor rude and does not incite riots.

In this case, it is not a stranger. Freedom of speech guarantees this right.
The other person does not have to listen of course. This opinion has been defended long ago
as a morally correct or acceptable guiding rule. I can quote you the classic book and the famous author J.S. Mill.
In our society, we have been so indoctrinated to think that someone else's feelings or toleration is more important than anything, It is not.
but again as long as the speech is not suggesting a crime or taking away another's freedoms. I agree with Mill and stand by my position.

Aurora is this the J S Mill you mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

If so, I think you need to re read him.