a daring thing to do!

[resolution]

And yes, I could very easily break someone's wrist, and if a strange man assaulted me in a dark place, you can be damn sure I'd react violently. My "aggressive" response would be entirely justified by an unknown man touching me without my permission - that's considered assault, and in this case it could even be considered sexual assault (given our propensities) and I'd feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever for hurting someone who accosted me in such a way. Guys may find it funny, but most women would feel very threatened to have a strange man touching them in such an intimate manner without warning.

Very Easily? lol well i would normally take issue with such a general statement from a self defense standpoint but I suppose a woman in such a casual encounter would have the element of surprise on her side. She would have to already be very proficient in the technique she is going to use to accomplish it, and there shouldn't be a significant size difference (Unless she takes the indirect route: hit him in the groin, and then while he is curled up on the floor in pain, break his wrist ).

It's considered assault, and for good reason.

There's laws and everything

I don't know where Paulie is from but here in the States we have somewhat less expansive laws on assault than It seems you have in Canada. Only violent, or sexual contact (as defined by non sneeze fetishists) qualifies as physical assault. Ofcourse if one were to persist in the kind of action in question it could become general harrassment.

But over here if you break someone's wrist for gently touching your nose once, you are the one in trouble. I do understand your feelings (as much as it is possible from a second hand perspective) concerning sexual abuse, and how many absolutely intolerable red lights an act like that sets off in the mind of someone that has been a victim of it.

[Vetinari]

My personal feeling on the description given by Paulie was that it bordered upon sexual assault although I cannot imagine it being viewed that way in a court. My immediate response to Paulie's description was a feeling of disgust at the fact that a man was taking advantage of an unknown woman in a sexual way, whether or not the woman in question was aware of that fact.

The thought of what he allegedly did causes a flow of adrenaline and the natural reaction to that is fight or flight. My uncensored reaction, sitting here is that I would want to hurt him quite badly. That reaction is instinctive and surprisingly strong and in my opinion it is there because in this situation Paulies actual purposes are clear; he claims to be a fetishist and therefore his reactions to this are obviously sexual. In reality I am fairly sure what I would do was move away and probably go home feeling very unpleasantly shaken up. Others have expressed what they feel they would be likely to do but it is quite likely that faced with the realities of that situation they might react differently. Perhaps, however daring Paulie considers this to have been he should take into account that many women on here have stated that they feel very threatened by his alleged actions.

Far from being daring his alleged actions appear to me quite thoughtless. He appears to have thought of the woman in question as an object without considering in advance what her feelings might have been. I personally would not like any of our younger, more impressionable members to receive the idea that his behaviour is normal or in any way desirable.

[Dawnie]

now how many of you would have been so bold as to do what i did?

That is amazing. I'd never have the guts to do that. And honestly, if someone tried to do that to me I think my automatic reaction would have been to bat their hand away and been like, "what are you doing?!" Then I'd have to leave because my husband would have punched the guy out. LOL

[Vetinari]

I'd never have the guts to do that.

I'm not sure it requires guts so much as a complete misunderstanding of, or disinterest in the possible feelings of the other party.

[Dawnie]

I'd never have the guts to do that.

I'm not sure it requires guts so much as a complete misunderstanding of, or disinterest in the possible feelings of the other party.

True enough. It is a huge risk. Although if a gal did it to a guy, he probably wouldn't mind as much.

[Vetinari]

I'd never have the guts to do that.

I'm not sure it requires guts so much as a complete misunderstanding of, or disinterest in the possible feelings of the other party.

True enough. It is a huge risk. Although if a gal did it to a guy, he probably wouldn't mind as much.

This is absolutely true. I think, whether or not it appears sexist that a woman doing this to a man would seem a lot less threatening although maybe some of the men could comment on that better.

In general I feel it is important in any interaction of a sexual nature between two persons it is preferable to make at least some attempt to ensure that there is consent before acting. What disturbed me about the original post was that there appeared to be no such attempt made. I accept that it may be that Paulie just chose to leave something out in order to be provocative or because he felt for some reason that it was unimportant.

Additionally I think if someone I was friendly with and knew to be a fellow fetishist do this I might well find it amusing or pleasurable. If Paulie had suggested for example that he had chatted to the lady in question beforehand in a friendly way then I would find the description much less disturbing. I think feelings can run high about things like this but unless one is actually IN the situation it is nigh on impossible to judge fully what the reaction would be.

[resolution]

I'd never have the guts to do that.

I'm not sure it requires guts so much as a complete misunderstanding of, or disinterest in the possible feelings of the other party.

lol it requires both. This just brings up the old question of whether or not actions considered by one party to be sexual are actually sexual if they are not considered to be by the other party.

I am sure there are COUNTLESS fetishists that have violated principles of sexual harrassment if the anser is yes. Ofcourse none have probably been so extravagant as to try it with a total stranger like our pal Paulie has.

Men are used to reading women's personalities and predicting their reactions, it is a condition for initiating romantic encounters with women.

So I think Paulie had some sense of the fact that this girl was the type that was probably not going to slap him right after.

Then again, you can never be 100% sure.

[Vetinari]

So I think Paulie had some sense of the fact that this girl was the type that was probably not going to slap him right after.

In the event that the events actually occurred you may be correct. Alternatively Paulie may just have been oblivious to the fact that he had caused distress.

I am sure there are COUNTLESS fetishists that have violated principles of sexual harrassment if the anser is yes. Ofcourse none have probably been so extravagant as to try it with a total stranger like our pal Paulie has.

I agree that on occasion this might be the case. It does depend however on where the line is drawn and physical contact of such a personal nature oversteps handing over a hankie or just watching for example, in my opinion.

[resolution]

So I think Paulie had some sense of the fact that this girl was the type that was probably not going to slap him right after.

In the event that the events actually occurred you may be correct. Alternatively Paulie may just have been oblivious to the fact that he had caused distress. And if you are unsure what I mean I suggest you read some of his other posts.

I am sure there are COUNTLESS fetishists that have violated principles of sexual harrassment if the anser is yes. Ofcourse none have probably been so extravagant as to try it with a total stranger like our pal Paulie has.

I agree that on occasion this might be the case. It does depend however on where the line is drawn and physical contact of such a personal nature oversteps handing over a hankie or just watching for example, in my opinion.

Well to give an example, there are guys without the fetish that would do the kind of thing that Paulie did to a female friend just to be crazy. Now given that they were good freinds she might not mind it at all. Does it become wrong if a fetishist does it instead?

[Vetinari]

Well to give an example, there are guys without the fetish that would do the kind of thing that Paulie did to a female friend just to be crazy. Now given that they were good freinds she might not mind it at all. Does it become wrong if a fetishist does it instead?

This is not particularly on the topic that Paulie raised so this will be my last reply on the subject but I will answer.

I shall quote myself as I think this is partially relevant.

Additionally I think if someone I was friendly with and knew to be a fellow fetishist do this I might well find it amusing or pleasurable. If Paulie had suggested for example that he had chatted to the lady in question beforehand in a friendly way then I would find the description much less disturbing. I think feelings can run high about things like this but unless one is actually IN the situation it is nigh on impossible to judge fully what the reaction would be.

To clarify further as I realise that I do not answer fully the entire query in that post, what happens between friends is very different. You could argue that the fetishist you describe is taking advantage of the fact that the friend doesn't know but if it causes no distress it is not particularly important in my opinion although I know there are others who would disagree.

However I think this discussion hinges upon whether the action in question could be regarded as threatening by the person subjected to it. Placing your hand near to a strangers face seems to me to overstep that mark because it is well outwith what the majority of people would consider to be within the normal range of interactions between strangers. With a friend such intimacy might well seem normal and very likely would not be perceived as threatening.

The fact that it was a sexual move on Paulie's part makes it appear worse to us because he knew fully what he was doing and I would imagine that would be why more than half the women who commented here state that they find it an unpleasant or even threatening concept.

Had Paulie described this action to non-fetishists without explaining his preferences they would probably have just thought it rather odd. Some of us however find it threatening and I think that is natural. Women have their instincts too and scientific research suggests we should listen to them because they have evolved for good reasons!

[resolution]

Well to give an example, there are guys without the fetish that would do the kind of thing that Paulie did to a female friend just to be crazy. Now given that they were good freinds she might not mind it at all. Does it become wrong if a fetishist does it instead?

This is not particularly on the topic that Paulie raised so this will be my last reply on the subject but I will answer.

I shall quote myself as I think this is partially relevant.

Additionally I think if someone I was friendly with and knew to be a fellow fetishist do this I might well find it amusing or pleasurable. If Paulie had suggested for example that he had chatted to the lady in question beforehand in a friendly way then I would find the description much less disturbing. I think feelings can run high about things like this but unless one is actually IN the situation it is nigh on impossible to judge fully what the reaction would be.

Right, well ofcourse if it was a friend you knew to be a fetishist there wouldn't be the whole difference in interpretation.

I certainly agree that Paulie's instance is quite different, I was only addressing a reference to a sort of general principle you mentioned in one of your other posts. Even while addressing it though i am reminded that the subject is complicated and difficult to discuss neatly. It is a matter of emotionally understandable impulses attempting to articulate themselves in the form of wholey consistent abstract ideas.

Practically speaking i never had a great deal of sympathy for the general practice of something like what Paulie described, although there is admittedly a certain appeal in a closed story scenario where neither party is genuinely offended in any way.