It is a common misconception that barrels are nonliving things that are made in factories. But recent research has shown that barrels are actually living beings, and that they are birthed by a Mother Barrel. This very weird gif shows a mother barrel giving birth to a baby barrel. Oddly enough, the mother barrels look nothing like their offspring, and only the offspring are used by humans. Mother barrels look like gigantic machines with huge teeth on them. Baby barrels look like, well, barrels. The only barrels that humans use are the babies. Barrels are often mistreated by humans who pretty much just throw shit in them. Often the worst sort of garbage is routinely tossed into barrels by all sorts of humans without a thought in mind about how the barrel itself might feel to have trash thrown in it all day and night. The life of a barrel is not pleasant. If people are not deliberately feeding you trash, you are being used to store stuff, often something nasty or unpleasant. Some barrels are abandoned by humans in the countryside. There they live out forlorn lives, collecting rainwater and rusting until they die. Barrel rights organizations are working hard to improve the lot of barrels, but it’s an uphill climb, as most folks first thought upon seeing a barrel is to throw some shit in it, preferably trash.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGvQ0iokyJs] Hehe. Great song. Really takes you back, doesn’t it. Even though I don’t really smoke pot anymore, I did for many years. All I remember (to the extent that I remember any of it) was good times. That’s why every time I hear this song, I smile. From Blonde on Blonde, a double album from 1965. One of the most kickass modern rock and roll albums of all time.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LW6lOdxqSUE] Although of course I opposed apartheid, supported the ANC and the transition to democracy, let’s face it. It hasn’t all been peaches and roses, now has it? On balance though, I would say that it was the right thing to do. One man one vote is the only way to go. Apartheid, racist rule by a tiny minority, was just wrong, period, whatever benefits it may have had for whoever. Sometimes doing the right thing causes more problems than doing the wrong thing. In that case, as a Western Christian, I would still say that we should do the right thing anyway for no other reason than to do the right thing. Doing the right thing is proper and correct in and of itself, regardless of whatever consequences flow from that decision. Besides, the notion that Blacks lived in paradise under apartheid is highly dubious! Reading through the comments, many of which are racist, one point keeps getting hammered home over and over. The nonracist side of me cringes when I hear it, but nevertheless, all arguments should be entertained in the quest for truth. Just because an argument is racist doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Sadly, racist arguments may indeed be correct even if the people making them are bad people. The argument is that Blacks not only cannot create higher civilization in the first place on their own, but when handed a higher civilization created by another group (typically Whites) in a matter of time, a few decades or less, they pretty much unravel that advanced civilization and turn the place into a dirty, dangerous, chaotic, polluted, unhealthy slum. Those pictures in that video could be of Detroit, East St. Louis, Camden, Newark, Chicago’s South Side or Oakland. Whether or not Blacks are civilization destroyers once they become a majority is an interesting question, but once one accepts the premise just for the purposes of argument, one still wonders at the reason. One argument is IQ. However, the US Black IQ is ~87. That’s certainly high enough to create stable civilization. The African IQ is controversial. One paper says it is only ~69. In that case, civilization wrecking would seem to be par for the course. Yet a new study puts the African IQ at ~80. I am not sure if that is correct, but if it is, that should be high enough to create a functional society. After all, the Moroccan IQ is 82, the Indonesian IQ is 79 and the Qatari IQ is 78. All of these peoples have produced more or less functional societies with ~80 IQ’s, so an 80 IQ should be plenty enough to create a working society. Another argument is high testosterone. High testosterone may explain higher Black crime rates until age 33. Would Black crime alone in and of itself be enough to completely unravel civilization in that way we see in Detroit and in the video? Isn’t there more going on there than just crime? At any rate, Black women commit little crime, and after age 33, Black men’s testosterone is lower than that of Whites. Surely Black women and older Black males ought to be able to create functional societies as they don’t have testosterone to blame. At the end of the day, the arguments just don’t seem to be make sense. The, yes, racist argument that Blacks are civilization wreckers in at least quite a few cases stings, but even non-racists must wonder painfully if it’s true. Yet that arguments put forward for why Blacks dismantle civilization seem to lack explanatory adequacy. Even more painfully, let us suppose that Blacks have civilization dismantling properties. Are they doomed to do this forever and ever? Is there any hope for Blacks? Are admixed Blacks (mulattos, zambos, etc.) also likely to do this? If so, do they do it at the same rate or a lesser rate? I’m sure that quite a few Black people like to live in chaotic, filthy, disordered, and dangerous places. On the other hand, we have Black commenters and authors on this site who are as repulsed by these places as I am. Before attacking Blacks wholesale for dismantling civilization, let us keep in mind that the primary victims of Black civilization dismantling are Blacks themselves. Other races suffer from the downside of this unraveling at a dramatically reduced rate. As Blacks dismantle civilizations, they inflict an unbelievably horrific cost of suffering, pain, illness and death on their very own kind. That right there is as sad as a bottomless well. That Blacks are the primary victims of this entropic impulse makes it even more imperative that we get to the bottom of it.
Discuss here which women are the hottest and which men are the hottest of various races. Also discuss which men of various races can get the hottest women of other races and which women of various races will turn down men of other races.
An excellent essay by Dota on Hindu ethics and how they are incomprehensible to the Westerner.
Hindu Ethics and the West
Dedication: This essay is dedicated to all the valiant peoples of European ancestry who stand against the modern currents of our time in defense of Western Civilization. You are not alone. Before we jump right into the thick of things, I’d like to explicitly state that I am not an expert in Hinduism or Philosophy. I have no doubt that after reading this essay some of you are going to challenge the arguments presented here, and I encourage you to do so. Some of you might have questions, and I might not have answers to them all. I do however encourage all of you to research this fascinating subject and formulate your own opinions. The purpose of this essay is to introduce you to the basics of Hindu ethical thought in light of Arthur Danto’s argument of why they are not compatible with Western ethics. This essay will first introduce the reader to Danto’s argument followed by an application of Hindu ethics in the context of certain stories from the Mahabharat and Ramayan; stories I grew up reading in Hindi class as a child. I will then attempt to draw a comparison between western morality and Dharma. The scope of this essay is purely introductory and despite the mind-boggling diversity of the Hindu tradition, I will try and focus on mainstream Hindu practices and beliefs. In his monumental book Mysticism and Morality (1972), Arthur Coleman Danto argues that the Indian ethical systems present within the Hindu and Buddhist traditions are not accessible to most Westerners. I would like to confess that I have not personally read Mysticism and Morality since I have not been able to find a copy of the book in Saskatoon. It is available in the University Library which I unfortunately have no access to. For the purpose of this essay, we shall focus exclusively on the Hindu tradition and leave Buddhism out. An excellent breakdown of the contents of this book can be accessed at Ralf Dumain’s blog here. Danto’s major overarching argument is that the factual beliefs upon which Hindu ethics are constructed are not accessible to westerners, and hence the ethical systems themselves are of little value in the west. What are some of these factual beliefs? Many Hindu apologists will attempt to render Hinduism immune to critique by insisting that Hinduism has no doctrines or central creed. That Hindu beliefs cannot be homogenized. However said apologists will also do everything in their power to link any Indian influences on outside cultures to the great monolithic Hinduism. I refer to this tactic as the shape-shifting apology. Thus Hinduism is rendered a monolith or a phantom depending on the apologist’s agenda. However as Meera Nanda points out, Hinduism certainly possesses beliefs that are core and non negotiable (caste, Karma, Dharma) which we shall examine. In Hindu tradition, one’s caste is a function of one’s Karma, which in turn is a function of one’s Dharma. If a person’s karma (actions) fulfills his dharma (obligations/duties), he is rewarded in the next life and may find himself born in a higher caste. Let us assume that a Brahmin sins by committing murder and is reincarnated as a Dalit in his next life. He is barred from accessing the village well and is forcefully segregated with a host of untouchability laws. On the face of it, it seems that justice has been served. However all of this depends on the existence of the interlocking forces of Karma and Dharma. To my knowledge, the Hindu texts do not attempt to prove their existence, but simply assume that their existence is a fact. If one were to encounter a Dalit enduring social oppression, would it be moral to assist him/her? If Karma exists, then the answer is no, as that Dalit is reaping what was sowed in a previous lifetime. If Karma does not exist, then ignoring the plight of a suffering soul would be rightly regarded as callous indifference in Western ethical thought. Danto points out:
“…that if the factual beliefs of India to which I refer are false, there is very little point in Indian philosophy, and very little room for serious application of Indian moral beliefs. . .” (21)
In the context of caste, Ralph Dumain summarizes Danto’s position as thus:
“Danto argues, as did Max Weber, that the caste system of Hinduism resists universality, as members of different castes are regarded as members of different species. This leads to a peculiar kind of toleration, just as we tolerate animals because they can’t be like us. Hindus will tolerate the actions of others so long as their behavior is defined as licit for their caste. Therefore, the morality operant in this scenario stands or falls on the presupposed factual beliefs about caste.” (34-5)“
When one studies the Mahabharat, one is immediately struck by two things: The enormous literary value of this monumental epic and the shocking conduct of the amoral trickster god Krishna. In his paper Maximizing Dharma: Krsna’s Consequentialism in the Mahabharata, Joseph Dowd points out:
“For example, consider Krsna’s treatment of Bhisma, a warrior for the Kauravas. Bhisma knows that Sikhandi, a warrior for the Pandavas, was a woman in his previous life. Krsna tells the Pandavas to set Sikhandi on Bhisma. Bhisma refuses to fight Sikhandi, who deals Bhisma a mortal wound. Another example concerns Karna, another warrior for the Kauravas. When Arjuna fights Karna, Karna’s chariot wheel gets stuck. Karna asks Arjuna to let him get his chariot unstuck before continuing with the battle. But Krsna reminds Arjuna of Karna’s misdeeds and tells him to kill Karna immediately. During a mace fight between Bhima and Duryodhana, Krsna tells Bhima to violate the warrior code by using a low blow.”
Joseph Dowd argues that Dharma (now referring to the Cosmic order) needs to be maintained and can only be done so if the Pandava faction triumphs over the evil Kaurava faction in the war. Krishna himself justifies his shocking actions as thus:
“Ye could never have slain them in battle by fighting fairly! King Duryodhana also could never be slain in a fair encounter! The same is the case with all those mighty car-warriors headed by [Bhisma]! From desire of doing good to you, I repeatedly applied my powers of illusion and caused them to be slain by diverse means in battle. If I had not adopted such deceitful ways in battle, victory would never have been yours […] You should not take it to heart that this foe of yours hath been slain deceitfully.”
Let us once again apply Arthur Danto’s principle in determining the moral validity of Krishna’s actions. It would seem that the morality of Krishna’s actions rest heavily on the existence of Dharma. If Dharma exists, and if its existence is threatened, then agents must do everything in their power to prevent this catastrophe. It would seem that Krishna’s actions would then be moral. However if Dharma does not exist, Krishna’s actions are clearly opportunistic. Let us now examine another feature of Hindu morality: The lack of intent. Ralph again explains Danto’s point of view:
“The infamous story of Arjuna is the key, the sophistical argument that Arjuna fight and kill with detachment. (88) One must perform one’s actions according to one’s calling, to be true to it without extraneous motivation. (91) This attitude is enabled by the detachment of self from body, so that one does not identify with the necessary actions of one’s body. Danto finds this to be bone-chilling, Nietzschean and inhuman. The factual beliefs postulated are radically at odds with morality. (94-5) Danto ponders possible points of comparison of this notion of detachment with Kant, but insists that morality has no meaning without systems of rules. (96) Intention is decisive; it ties the agent to the action. The Gita robs actions of their moral qualities by detaching them from their agents. (98) This has some resemblance to Nietzsche’s position. (99)”
A look at the Ramayan story of Shravan Kumar should illustrate this point clearly. I had read this story in Hindi class when I was in grade 5 and the chapter was aptly named: आज्ञाकारी पुत्र (The Obedient Son). The protagonist Shravan Kumar embarks upon a pilgrimage with his blind aged parents who are unable to make the journey alone. En route they grow weary from thirst and request a drink of water from their son. Shravan wanders over to a nearby stream and begins to draw water. Unfortunately, King Dashratha (Ram’s father) happens to be hunting nearby, mistakes Shravan for a deer, and fires. A wounded Shravan requests that the horrified king complete Sharavan’s task and bring water to the blind parents. The king complies but is recognized by the blind parents as an impostor; whereupon the king sadly confesses his accidental misdeed. Distraught beyond measure, the parents curse the king that he too would die a lonely death pining for his son. The parents then perish. The curse comes to pass as the king lies on his deathbed longing for his son who is in exile. Thus the king is punished for his action (karma) without his intention even being considered. The moral maxim of letting the punishment fit the crime cannot be applied if intention is divorced from action. In Western morality, intention is a key variable and the Bible confirms this in numerous places:
“Then the Lord said to Joshua: “Tell the Israelites to designate the cities of refuge, as I instructed you through Moses, so that anyone who kills a person accidentally and unintentionally may flee there and find protection from the avenger of blood.” Joshua 20:1-3
In the sermon on the mount, Jesus adds an additional dimension of intent when proclaiming:
“But I say to you, That whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Matthew 5:28
Also consider the following story from the Mahabharat which is included in Dowd’s paper:
“In one passage, the Pandavas trick Drona, a warrior for the Kauravas, into thinking that his son Asvatthaman is dead. At Krsna’s suggestion, they kill an elephant named Asvatthaman and then tell Drona, “Aswatthaman hath been slain” (Ganguli, 1883-1896a). As a result, Drona withdraws from the war to grieve. Now, whether or not the Pandavas had killed the elephant, the outcome would have been the same: Drona would have been tricked into thinking that Asvatthaman was dead. However, truthfulness is a supreme norm in Hindu thought (Buitenen, 1975, p. 177; Goldman, 1997, p. 189; Khan, 1965, p. 204). By killing the elephant, the Pandavas ensure that they are technically speaking the truth when they say, “Aswatthaman hath been slain.”
From a Hindu perspective, the actions of the Pandavas are moral, however from a western point of view, this still amounts to lying as the intent was to deceive.
Morals Versus Dharma
In his brilliant and succinct article Anatomy of an Indian, Aakar Patel states:
“Is Shri Ram’s murder of Vali and his treatment of Sita moral? Is Shri Krishna’s advice to Arjun on Karna moral? Is his action on Jayadrath moral? Is Acharya Drona’s behavior with Eklavya moral? Our texts say: “Yes.” They are right according to dharma (if the question is asked in an Indian language). But they are wrong morally. Dharma is opportunistic, while morals are not.”
Lets expand upon this point with the Ramayan story of Ram’s murder of Vali. At the behest of Vali’s younger brother Sugriva, Ram agrees to murder the latter’s older brother Vali, who has threatened the younger brother’s life. Ram executes a ruse where Sugriva issues a challenge to Vali, whereupon Vali accepts and emerges forward to participate in the duel. Ram ambushes Vali from behind and kills him with an arrow. A dying Vali questions Ram’s morality, and the latter responds that Vali failed in his obligation of forgiving his younger brother’s past transgressions. This was evil, and Ram was tasked with eradicating evil. Clearly Vali did violate his dharma as an older brother by not making amends with Sugriva, and the significance of brotherly duties are clearly illustrated in the Mahabharat story of Arjun’s wow and Yuddistira. So dharma was satisfied, but what about morality? Indeed, from a western point of view this murder was indeed cowardly and immoral; and what further compounds Ram’s duplicity is that he had committed this deed in exchange for Sugriva’s troops which were needed for the siege of Lanka. Dharma is concerned with duty and not morality where the emphasis is on fulfilling obligations or risking misfortune. Dharma is radically at odds with Western morality.
The purpose of this essay was not to prove the inherent superiority of the western moral system over the Indian one, but to alert Westerners of the folly of imitating a foreign set of beliefs without understanding them. Western morality is a highly developed and universal code which is adaptable, humane and has evolved beyond the Bible from which it originates. Upon it the modern world stands, and it cannot be replaced by any code of the Orient. For the purpose of fair discourse I would also like to recommend Hindu Ethics: A Philosophical Study by Roy Perret, who challenges many of Danto’s interpretations and his central argument.
Curious asks me about my “game” philosophy. I didn’t want to write this post, but I decided to bang one out anyway.
Where do you usually meet women? Bars? Social circle? What does your game consist of? What do you talk about with women that gets them attracted to you?
Women like me, and I know how to talk to women. I also understand women extremely well, that is, “I know women.” I know how they operate, how they think, and I can figure them out to some degree to the extent that they can be figured out by anyone. It’s very important to become a “student of women” and try to figure out what makes them tick. This education should be reality based and subject to reality testing with real world women and not just something you read in some guy’s book or on a website somewhere. Like most things, it comes from real world experience. Sadly, men who have little experience with women will never learn to understand them well and hence will probably continue messing up with them, acting inappropriately, etc. I go really slow, and women say I am very nice. That’s why they like me. They say, “You are kind to me.” “You are very nice to me.” Stuff like that. I know you are not supposed to be a nice guy, but it works pretty good for me. On the other hand, I do not tolerate much in the way of shit from women. If they get out of line, sometimes I just say things like, “Shut up bitch!” Then I give them a big grin and start laughing. Curiously, they often respect that, but I would not overdo it. Women like a guy who stands up to their shit when they overstep their bounds. I generally “let the woman lead” as far as conversation, flirtation, talking about sex, and whatever goes. I hold back and just make occasional probing remarks here and there and now and then and see how they respond. They are usually the ones who start talking about sexual stuff first, because I am not into jumping off with that. Sometimes I get the impression that they get frustrated with me because I am not moving on them, so they start moving on me. I also apologize a lot and even ask if I offended them if I say something sexual. The response is usually, “No! Not at all!” I know that going slow like that is not supposed to work, but it works for me. My philosophy is “let the woman lead.” If put her in charge of the situation, she feels empowered. It’s also important to have an accepting role of female sexuality. I don’t slut shame. I even slut praise. This opens them up so they feel relaxed about being sexual. A lot of times they confess all sorts of wild sexual stuff to me – how they screwed two guys at once, got gangbanged, had sex with a woman, and all sorts of weird perversions they have. You would be amazed at how much wild sexual stuff many ordinary women have done and how bizarre, kinky, or even sick their fantasies or kinks are. I accept all of their wild sexual activities and kinks. I just cheer it all on and try not to slut shame in any way whatsoever. In my opinion, slut shaming in any way puts the cooler on female sexuality. Even women who have been to orgies and who like to have sex with other women don’t really like being slut shamed. If a woman is more proper or takes pride in not being a slut, I cheer that on too, and tell her that I appreciate a woman like that, a woman who’s not a slut and takes pride in her sexual propriety. You praise her for being a good girl. I know it’s hypocritical to both praise sluts for being sluts and good girls for being good girls, but that’s the way I roll. I never admit or confess to any sexual weaknesses such as not getting any or being unsuccessful with women in any way, shape, or form. Nothing turns a woman off more than a guy who can’t get any. I do make references to my sexual history, typically just to alleviate concerns that I am some sort of a virgin. I use “fake modesty” when I do this and say it in a matter of fact way like I was talking about drinking water. I also act like I am embarrassed about my history and often say it’s not all beds of roses, that there’s a downside to promiscuity. Basically, women like studs but not braggart studs. More like modest studs who act like it’s no big deal, like breathing air. I also often say that my promiscuous days are in the past, and now I am looking for one woman, as I am too old to run around now. That’s pretty much a lie, but it’s a great line. If you come right out and say you’re a player, and that’s the way you roll, you turn a lot of women off who don’t want to be Woman Number 4. Most women want to be Woman Number 1, and you have to make her feel like she has a chance to do that, even if she really doesn’t. So don’t say, “I’m a player.” She thinks you will pump and dump her or you have various other women, and most women don’t dig that. Much better to come off as “reformed and chagrined player who had his fun but now he’s seen the light and ready to change and be a one woman man” even if that’s a complete lie. It doesn’t matter if what you tell women is true or not; all that matters is whether this or that line or attitude is going to work or not. If it doesn’t work, don’t say it. If it works, say it. Whether it’s true or a lie is irrelevant when dealing with women. If telling the truth is going to work, you tell the truth. If lying is going to work best, then you lie. Real simple. I make a point to say how I like women better than men and I prefer the company of women to the company of men ,and that’s just the kind of guy I am and have always been. If they ask me why I never married, I say that I dated 200 women and girls in my life and I had a great life with a lot of great love affairs and even long term relationships. Then I say, “I just never married any of them.” Women don’t like older never married men too much. When I was younger, they didn’t even like younger never married men. The idea is that there is something wrong with you that turns off women or you can’t get laid or you are a 40 year old virgin. Basically, never married screams “Loser!” to a lot of women. On the other hand, players get a pass. If some notorious player never married, no one really cares too much. That is considered an acceptable way to be a hardcore bachelor. I am happy being alone. I never say I am lonely or miserable even if I am. If I am depressed, I usually lie and say I’m not. I can’t think of anything stupider than telling a woman you’re lonely, miserable or depressed. You might as well take a felt pen and write LOSER across your forehead. This is what I mean when I said you have to lie to women. Being honest to women all the time simply doesn’t work. It’s a guaranteed fail. Why do it? You trying to win points with Jesus? I admit that I am broke, but I say that I don’t care, and I am not into money. If you say you are broke and miserable, once again that screams LOSER. Bottom line is if you’re life is screwed up in any way, don’t admit it to women. It’s a guaranteed fail. Simply embrace the screwed up areas of your life and say you are perfectly happy living in a slum or driving a rattletrap or eating cans of beans for dinner or whatever it is that is messed up about your life. The main thing is that if she sees you as weak, you are not going to get any. It doesn’t matter if you are weak in various ways in your personal life. All of us men are weak. The only men who are not weak are liars and dead men. So what if you’re weak about this or that! Just don’t admit it to women! That’s something you may or may not want to work on yourself. Women hate whiners. If you whine, women say get off your ass and solve your problem, idiot! And don’t complain too much, at least about personal stuff. You can complain about non-personal stuff all you want. I am a very easygoing guy with a great sense of humor. I ask women a lot about their own lives and get them talking about themselves a lot. This is great because people love to talk about themselves, and most guys don’t listen to women at all. If a woman is going on and on about the latest crazy drama she is involved in, simply lean forward, make occasional comments like, “I see”, “ok’, “And then what happened?”, “Ahhhh”. That’s called active listening. You don’t have to actually listen to her. I think you should try to listen, but if her crazy hour-long drama story leaves you baffled, just lean forward and pretend you understand. I’ve been doing this my whole life and women always say what a fantastic listener I am. Truth is a lot of the time I am just pretending to listen to them or humoring them when they are rambling on about some convoluted drama. I doesn’t work to tell women to shut up or that you are bored, that they’ve talked enough, or that you don’t care. That’s a fail. A lot of men do this. Men are notorious for not listening to women at all, telling them they are boring, tuning them out, walking out of the room, telling them to shut up, etc. I understand why men do this because women’s endless soap opera lives are rather insipid from our point of view. The more crucial matter is: You wan to get laid or not? Women love good listeners. That’s the best thing you can be. When women are happy with your behavior, they tend to reward you. As in, you get laid. What I am saying is pretend to listen to her if you want to have a sex life With women I know on any level, I figure out where I am with them sexually to the extent if I can say anything remotely sexual or even friendly. Test the waters now and again with friendly conversation and see how far it goes. If she shuts it down, pack up and leave. Too many men keep pounding away and rejecting women like they are broken coke machines and if you bang on them enough, a bottle comes out. If you to figure where you are sexually with her, there are things you can say to bring that out. Compliment her on her outfit. Tell her she looks beautiful today. Be very careful about sexual conversations with women you know if you are not sure they are ok with that. That’s a serious danger zone. You can only talk about sexual stuff with women who have greenlighted you to do that. Way too many men get too friendly with unfriendly women and get way too sexual with women are not even friendly to them, forget sexually interested. This is the source of most women’s complaints about creepy behavior. Women are not broken coke machines. A shutdown is a shutdown. It means bye bye, not try harder, I’m playing hard to get, etc. Way too many men keep persisting in the face of the obvious shutdowns and this the cause of much complaints about creepy behavior. With a lot of young women nowadays, I can’t get very friendly with them by engaging them in much conversation, forget talking dirty or flirting. They see me as an old man, and while they are polite to me, any conversation other than perfunctory is regarded as “overly friendly,” and if I try to do it, I tend to get hard shutdowns pretty quickly. I monitor the situation all the time with all the women I know or in my life and keep a database in my head regarding where I am with them on a friendly or sexual basis and hence how I am allowed to talk to them. Then I proceed to deal with them accordingly. You can talk to different women about different things at different levels. Figure out what are the permissible levels of conversation with each women you deal with regularly and then deal proceed. Update regularly as if they were entries in a database. The more you do this, the less you will be accused of inappropriate or creepy behaviors.
In France, you could end up in trouble with the law if you look a woman up and down and she’s offended by it. “Looking someone up and down” is included in a list of behaviors that could be seen as sexual harassment in France. This list is in a preliminary report issued by the French Parliament back on July 18 – a report that will serve as a guide in implementing France’s brand new law against sexual harassment. Under the old law, the notion of sexual harassment was restricted to “obtaining favors of a sexual nature” and was punishable by a year in jail and a fine of approximately $18,000. The new law is more specific about defining sexual harassment, which is:
imposing on someone, in a repeated way, words or actions that have a sexual connotation and either affecting the person’s dignity because of their degrading or humiliating nature or putting him or her in an intimidating, hostile or offensive situation.
A perpetrator could serve 2 years in jail and be fined about $37,000. If the person you harass is under 15, under your authority, or disabled, you could be fined about $53,000 and serve up to 3 years in prison. Unacceptable behaviors in addition to reckless eyeballing might include:
- sexual jokes
- neck massages
- leaving a pornographic magazine on someone’s desk
The new law will cover interactions in the workplace, universities, housing, and job interviews.