Now, since I was raised by a sex-positive feminist, and have been accused by Ethan of sounding like a PC caricature; I feel rather comfortable passing on a little truth about even the most sensitive males. We all have desires. And, as male sexuality is very driven by visual cues, we all look.

I find that many women don't care to be confronted by the fact that male sexuality differs from female sexuality. ( Heck, female "pronz" is the Romance novel. ) But the facts are there. And even the guys they feel comfortable venting to are doing the same.

But looking is not the same as leering. We've all seen that guy who eyes women up and down, cranes his neck to stare as they pass him on the street and who will stare at other women even in the company of his GF or spouse.

Its a matter of self-control, not of being neutered. Because even the guy praised by women for being "different" in this regard is doing it nonetheless. If you've ever been that other guy, the one girls feel comfortable relating their "guy problems" to; then you know the difference between looking and leering ( even if the two are falsely equated by anti-sex feminism and other fundamentalist religions. )

Now despite what antis ( and religious zealots ) believe about the magik powers attributed to the male gaze, looking doesn't burn tracks into the one being looked at, nor can it be felt by the person who is looking elsewhere ( let alone across a distance when its Jennifer Lawrence's pixels being looked at. [ Yes, Pedos aren't the only ones that magic-eye-theory has been tried out upon. ] )

While the Markabas and Ethans of the world believe that all the positive evidence and behaviour of others choosing my company or bending my ear to tell me that I'm different is no proof that they feel this way, I will continue to assume that various women's unsolicited claims that I don't look at them like that are proof that looking doesn't leave marks. ( Heck, given that I was a rather lovely LB, I will assume as a given that some BLer must've looked at me appreciatively once or twice. But if they were checking out my *ss while I was looking elsewhere, my radar wasn't working that day. )

The idea that the unseen gaze has power stems from another religious assumption ( and an impossible one at that; ) that you can only have honest social relationships with those you don't desire on any level. That any desirous feeling renders the entire relationship into a massive seduction effort.

Again, women should assume that the fellow they feel they can go to in their workplace whose professional demeanor renders him apparently asexual ( if not ghay ) actually has human feelings. It is possible to be attracted to some and yet not allow it to enter decisions. ( Again, I know that it is a tenet of many faiths that the contents of your "sinful" heart must be manifest and erase any other feelings or actions. But I hold that the proof lies in the fact that psychic powers don't exist and that others seek my advice on how to approach workplace neutrality [ which I presume they wouldn't if they knew I was checking out their hips. ] )

If'n Ethan wants to pass as male, he is going to have to do a better job of acknowledging those things women would rather not hear which are nonetheless true about even the sensitive new-age guy they feel they can confide in.

Further, he has made it clear that his call for a recognition of iatrogenic harm is not rooted in the real concerns we have. We look at the objective manifest behaviour as a potential risk. We know that the LEOs will target the girl because of her sexual partner's age and acts; not because of what was going through their mind at any point.

Whereas Ethan believes that what is objectively and manifestly innocuous must become a sexual act because it gratified someone's desires, even if this fact remains known only to that person alone. This is quite in line with his preference for disparaging the unknowable but suspected motives of others; even though it goes against caselaw which the courts cite to deny that Pedo-eye alone creates KP in otherwise harmless materiel. And even though such public encouragement to act on invisible suspicious motives creates an atmosphere hostile to parentally affectionate male relatives ( which places the child at risk to be abused later. )

Though I'm sure that his all-too-convenient amnesia will manifest itself in regard to his hateful accusations towards sadlife the next time he professes his ignorance and claims that the hostility he sees on the board towards him has nothing to do with the content of his posts.

Dante