FHM? For Headcases Monthly?

[emanix]

In all seriousness, sometimes I quite enjoy flicking through FHM. I have a partner who buys it for the pretty pictures, and whilst we've still discussions to have about that regarding objectification and gender politics, sometimes it bears an ironic reading as an insight into the ridiculousness of male popular culture (plus as nasty body image messages go, I find it less offensive than eg. Cosmopolitan). Today though, I noticed this little gem:

50 Greatest Mistakes You've Made With Women

No. 27: Being too much of a pest on the dance floor

Lesson Learned: "At what point did we think that thrusting a stiffy up and down her thigh would be acceptable? We're lucky most of us didn't get arrested."

So, hang on a minute... The only problem here is being 'too much' of a sex pest? Being 'a bit' of a sex pest is okay? I note that the article conveniently doesn't go into any further detail about where exactly the line is drawn. So... it's perfectly fine to ignore a woman's (or anyone else's) boundaries for the benefit of your own kicks up to what point exactly? Apparently rubbing an erection on an unconsenting thigh is Not Okay (which I suppose is something to be thankful for), but what is okay by FHM, exactly? Pressing said erection against an unconsenting young lady without moving it around? 'Accidental' groping? General invasion of personal space?
Oh, and apparently it's only being a sex pest on the dancefloor that's a problem. In private, it's okay to be a sex pest, perhaps?

No. Just no.

Guys, let's try something. Let's get this clear, it's a really simple concept.

Being a 'sex pest' is not okay ever.

Only 'YES' means yes.

Comments

[innocent loverboy (from livejournal.com)]

Points came to my mind one by one, so I'll put them down as they presented themselves.

1. You are spot-on. If frottage is one of your turn-ons, then more power to you, but if a girl's not interested, then she's not interested. As you say, there's no definition of exactly how pesty they think you can be before it gets to "too much".

2. Being at all pesty... well, that's kind of wrong too. I've seen girls being no less than manhandled on the dance floor by boys who grab. These boys often can't dance either, which makes it even worse! Memory from years back: at some points, girls have pretended that I'm their boyfriend, in order to avoid any unwanted intruders.

3. Flirtation is a wonderful art. And this sort of thing seems to assume it's no longer needed - because one can just "take". And hey, where's the fun in that, eh?

[world-rim-walke.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes and yes.

[weegoddess.livejournal.com]

Glad to see this post over my cup of tea. Good morning!

Miss you. :-(

[emanix.livejournal.com]

Aw, I've missed you too. Um, I don't suppose you're anywhere near Florida next month? I can't actually remember where you are geographically!

In other news, there might be a post to the Order of the Wand shortly. There's a recording session in the works!

[weegoddess.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I'm more than a thousand miles away from Florida. The US is vast...

Looking forward to more wand antics! I might actually have a post in the making too: sunspiral has apparently rigged up an attachment that will make the wand oh so adjustable...will be trying it out in a few weeks.

::buzzbuzzbuzz::

FHM

[ewen]

Playing Devil's Advocate here: while the example presented is clearly wrong (and the FHM author appears to think so too), (*much*) further down the spectrum there are things that most people might consider okay but some may worry that it makes them seem like a pest. Possibly that's behind the choice to write "too much of" in the heading. Of the things you mention, only "general invasion of personal space" gets close to that "maybe" category, IMHO; pushing into personal space is sometimes welcomed as a method of flirting, and sometimes rather icky, but either way it's rather less extreme than "thrusting a stiffy up and down her thigh". Further away, I'd suggest "always hanging around" (*without* invading personal space, just trying to stay in eyesight of the person as much as possible) is also sometimes suggested as a method of flirting, and yet could also easily end up being considered a pest ("stalker") if it's not welcomed.

While I agree with you that "Being a 'sex pest' is not okay ever", I fear that it's a truism -- if the behaviour rises to the level that one would call it "a 'sex pest'" then you've already determined it's not okay. But in some ways that's just the same "too much" distinction with different labels.

Having said all that, sadly I think that the FHM statement probably does reflect the same "confused over the concept" attitudes that you are concerned about, if not on behalf of the writer than at very least projected by the writer onto their perceived audience. It show confusion about how to attract attention in a way that will be welcomed (and back off if it isn't welcomed before "pest" enters anyone's mind). In general I've found it best not to think "too much" about FHM (et al).

Ewen

Re: FHM

[emanix.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my point was really 'if you're behaving in a way that *you* would define as being a sex pest, then stop right now. That isn't okay.' Obviously different folks draw that line in different places, but the article seemed to imply that consciously and intentionally 'being a sex pest' was okay as long as you didn't take it 'too far'. Well, no. If you know that your attention is unwelcome, you just don't do it.