# Unrequited



## Victor (Jan 1, 2016)

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 (Jan 1, 2016)

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 (Jan 1, 2016)

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 (Jan 1, 2016)

*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 (Jan 1, 2016)

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 (Jan 1, 2016)

> 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 (Jan 1, 2016)

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 (Jan 1, 2016)

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


----------



## tnthomas (Jan 1, 2016)

imp said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2016)

Victor said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2016)

Agreed. My sympathy is for the person being harassed.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 1, 2016)

Shalimar said:


> Agreed. My sympathy is for the person being harassed.



Mine, too.


----------



## imp (Jan 1, 2016)

tnthomas said:


> 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 (Jan 2, 2016)

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 (Jan 2, 2016)

Aurora said:


> 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 (Jan 2, 2016)

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 i*s 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 (Jan 2, 2016)

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


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 2, 2016)

Aurora said:


> 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 i*s 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
> ...



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 (Jan 2, 2016)

Aurora said:


> 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:



Aurora said:


> 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 i*s 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
> ...



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 (Jan 2, 2016)

> 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 (Jan 2, 2016)

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 (Jan 2, 2016)

Butterfly said:


> 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 (Jan 2, 2016)

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 (Jan 2, 2016)

Victor said:


> 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.





Aurora said:


> 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 (Jan 2, 2016)

Aurora said:


> 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 i*s 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
> ...



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.


----------



## Victor (Jan 5, 2016)

I am sorry I posted this. You people have a broad and pro female definition of harassment, just as I expected. That is what the feministS and liberals have programmed America and Europe to think.including you.. I have read enough of these posts to see that some of you are narrow minded and very thin skinned.  Get over it. If I say happy new year to someone and
they do not care for me, nothing wrong with that. As Aurora said, free speech still means something legally and morally, even if the liberals and conventional political correctness opposes it
. I have no intention of bothering anyone, never did.                       By your way of thinking salespeople harass many people every day.
 This thread is closed IMO.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 5, 2016)

Victor, you AND Aurora have much to learn about not just this subject but most likely life as well. Your post reflects your presumptuousness as well as your arrogance.   Get over yourself.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 5, 2016)

Well said AZJim..   They are grasping @ straws.   AND, notice that they are in the minority of the other posters.

He'd be better off playing with his cat.


----------



## applecruncher (Jan 5, 2016)

Pro-female? Liberal?

Victor, you're telling US to 'get over it' ..._Really?

_wow...shaking my head.


----------



## mitchezz (Jan 5, 2016)

What sort of response did you expect Victor? You gave very sketchy details that basically told us that a male was refusing to heed a request from a married woman to leave her alone. If you're interested in forming an attachment with a female there are plenty of dating sites.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 5, 2016)

Victor said:


> This thread is closed IMO.



So you didn't get the answers you wanted and now you're picking up your ball and going home - classy move.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 5, 2016)

hollydolly said:


> 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!!



I totally agree!


----------



## imp (Jan 5, 2016)

Why is it so important to be "in the majority"?   imp

Edit: Another imp "imponderable"


----------



## Yaya (Jan 5, 2016)

Life is short....one never knows if it is their last day.....to waste precious time/life on anyone who is not interested is just stupid.


----------



## tnthomas (Jan 5, 2016)

Victor said:


> I am sorry I posted this. You people have a broad and pro female definition of harassment, just as I expected. That is what the feministS and liberals have programmed America and Europe to think.including you.. I have read enough of these posts to see that some of you are narrow minded and very thin skinned.  Get over it. If I say happy new year to someone and
> they do not care for me, nothing wrong with that. As Aurora said, free speech still means something legally and morally, even if the liberals and conventional political correctness opposes it
> . I have no intention of bothering anyone, never did.                       By your way of thinking salespeople harass many people every day.
> This thread is closed IMO.



So, this thread was just* bait, *and not an earnest attempt at conversation.

Very cheesy!   It's too bad that some people have so little self-awareness, that they can't even recognize their own motivations for doing something, or the degree to which they are committing a deceptive act.


----------



## Shalimar (Jan 5, 2016)

I am wondering what the OP hoped to achieve in posting this thread. Was he truly hoping to be comforted over being rejected online by a woman who clearly saw his behaviour as unwelcome and intrusive? Is it likely to be that out of touch? As for the 

accusation of a pro female stance, at least one poster commented that this stalker like behaviour would apply to either gender. Liberal? I think many conservatives would be very concerned with such abuse of the Internet. This individual seems to have no 

empathy for the obvious distress this woman is experiencing over his advances, and that is what they are, regardless of whatever soft soap  currently is being applied. In my book, if you like someone much, you place their needs and feelings 

above your own where it is appropriate. Not to do so is, at the very least selfish, at the max, pathological.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 5, 2016)

Gender doesn't enter into it at all.  Nobody has to have a relationship with anyone else, online or otherwise, and of whatever type, that they don't want to have.  And if someone tries to force a relationship of any kind on an unwilling party, that's harassment in my book.


----------



## Shalimar (Jan 5, 2016)

Qft.


----------

