Catherine Deneuve defends men's 'right to hit on' women

It's good to know I could clumsily hit on her, and she wouldn't be offended. <3

Dates are always better if no one calls security and they don't end in pepper spray.

No link to her letter in the article.

Going solely by the headline and the programmed journalist selection: She is right.

She obviously never met Harvey Weinstein or let her kids play with Kevin Spacey.

I'm sorry but I have to agree with her. There's a major difference between "hitting" on a woman and sexually assaulting her. Unfortunately one hell of alot of the perpetually outraged and easily offended can't tell the difference which, actually ends up minimizing the real issues.

I'm also quite confident in my assumption that "hitting" on a woman by asking her sign, complementing her on her looks or politely asking her for a date while keeping your hands on the table is one hell of alot different than demanding she watch while you choke your chicken and tell unfunny jokes.

Where I work I've learned not to compliment anyone, ride in elevators alone with women, have a closed door meeting alone with a woman, go out to lunch or dinner with any coworkers, don't hug anyone, avoid direct eye contact, don't stand close to anyone, avoid office parties, and avoid my coworkers on social media.

It's all a trap.

The worst part of all of this is that woman who *have* been assaulted are being lumped in with woman who had an awkward experience with some guy who was quite frankly nothing more than sexually awkward.

I also have to believe 95% of woman disagree with the whole "metoo" movement. Or at least based on the response my wife, all of her friends, and my mother have had to the entire movement it sure seems like they dislike the whole thing more than I do (if that's even possible).

We're past the "praise everything anyone says" stage, and into the "crucify anyone who doesn't fully agree with them" phase now. Poor Matt Damon, Pamela Anderson and now Catherine Deneuve. Hopefully the whole thing swings back toward reason soon like these things have a tendency to do.

Which right is more important? The right to hit on women or the right not to be sexually assaulted or harrassed? Which should err on the side of caution for which side?

You are using black and white paintbrushes in a grey situation. It's not 'either' hitting on a woman 'or' sexual assault. There is a vast river between the two that most men and women navigate every day.

Protip: That's where babies come from.

It's not the "right to hit on a woman" vs the "right to not be sexually assaulted". That's a false equivalency.

This issue shouldn't be any different than any other legal issue. Follow the law. That means no assault, no unwanted touching, and if someone feels you are harassing them and makes you aware - you stop.

The problem is, so many of these complaints come from a place of "I should never, ever, ever have to feel the slightest bit uncomfortable", and that is ridiculous. I won't jump on the life is hard, or unfair or whatever conversation. But I will say, life is *awkward* at times. You can't make awkwardness criminal. It's not criminal in any other aspect of life, but, recently being sexually awkward has become a pseudo-crime. I say "pseudo" because it is *not a crime*... but the way the media ruins anyone who is even accused of being sexually awkward certainly punishes people like it is criminal... which leads me to another point.

Why is it ok to publicly ruin a man�s life by making unproven allegations? You can�t put a woman�s name in the media who was sexually assaulted, because that would further ruin her life. But the instant you accuse a man of any kind of sexual �crime�, that person�s life is *over*, and that is not ok. Think back to how many accusations in the media have later been proven as false� Innocent until proven guilty.

Because it's fashionable and it's also proof that people haven't really progressed from accusing people of witchcraft.

Note that with accusations of witchcraft and sexual impropriety the accused is guilty simply by nature of having been accused. There is no need to prove their guilt, you just accuse them and then demand their figurative if not literal death.

They are also lumped in with the lying whores.



For the same reason cats chase mice.

Attacking a man's marriage is a strategy employed to take down the competition. Only a sucker (or a whore) sees this as a man versus woman war. This Hollyweirdoe-media bullshit is man versus man with women used as cannon fodder.