No, and women who want to be kissed sure as hell don't want you to ask for it.

I'm not going to just go and kiss someone without asking them. I don't even hug people without asking for permission beforehand.

Doesn't look like Chun Li asked Lucario to hug him. But I can't imagine him disliking it!

It may be an age thing or a cultural thing. But imo physical attraction is mostly a non-verbal affair. You don't straight up kiss someone out of the blue. You know when you want to kiss each other, sexual tension has been built up first. Asking for a kiss can destroy that sexual tension in a second.

Lucario isn't a human though, much in the same way that I can't ask my cats whether or not they want to be cuddled

This site has also mob mentalitied all of those. A lot of times over "thought crimes."

There's humanity to every thought and action a person has and takes.  The flawed psyche - as in, everyone's mind because we all have a dark side - is not often comforted by a pitchfork society.  For those of us with less morality and/or intelligence, actions are to be expected and defense of those actions follow in kind.  

I guess my point is, all of us are really really flawed in multiple ways.  And a lot of times, it's not even our own fault.  Yet, I highly doubt there's a statistic about which nazis or rapists are genuinely horribly intent people and which are just pitiful and misguided.

[I'm sure this post will be described as condoning.  Let's see how long it takes.] 

1. Uh, I'm probably but more wary of such things that most people. I don't even accept online surveillance, pretty much under any terms. There are bad and worse ways to do it, but no good ways. I'm perfectly well aware of what you're saying. If you're not saying the required restrictions would be too severe, so do you think we can make restrictions that aren't soo strict?

2. The majority of the problem is made up of very simple cases that are not at all complex. I'm not even interested in trying to tackle the really complex problems before the simple ones are solved. For example, you don't go grabbing someone's tits at work. It's obvious, and it should be obvious to everyone. There's no complexity about it at all.

3. Rules can pretty much always be enforced with varying degrees of success. There's no need to change human nature for that to be possible. I have no reason to believe rules about harassment couldn't be enforced in a way that would change the situation noticeably.

4. I said 'related problems', so you misinterpreted what I said.

5. Let me hear what my strawmans are if you can. At worst, there's misunderstandings, but I don't think there's been a single strawman from me yet.

6. Uh, what? That's not at all how I think. If anything, I strive to understand other points of view. Understanding other points of view, even when I don't agree with them, is one of the most important things in all human interaction in my opinion, and this is a thing most people don't ever seem to realize. I must admit I don't understand your point of view though, because it doesn't make much sense to me. You have some good points, but I don't understand how you can base your opinion so heavily on human nature. Also, I never claimed you support sexual harassment. I chose my words very carefully when I said what I said, and for a good reason - I specifically didn't want to make that accusation. Read again what I wrote.

7. What actions do you think we should take then?

8. I'm sure there's a term for what you're doing but unfortunately I don't know it. Anyway, your warning about going over-the-top with control seem, quite frankly, over-the-top to me. I don't think there's need to come up with any heavy restrictions here, and you haven't said so either, so why do you keep coming up with the idea about too much control and oppressive regimes? As good as a point it can be, as far as I can see, in this case you're exaggerating the risks.

9. I could ask for more about this, but I guess it's best if we agree to disagree.

10. Like I said, I agree about your point, I just think it's your tone that's the problem. The only solution to the harassment problem I've heard coming from you so far is victims defending themselves more effectively, but you've pretty much completely ignored the offenders and in fact shown some understanding towards them.

11. No, not really. It would probably be mostly men, but really any intervention is going to be helpful. If you know no one's going to intervene, it'll be so much easier to go one doing your things. But if you know you have to explain yourself to someone, it's already going to raise the bar slightly. If someone interrupts a harassment situation, it can be stressful for the harasser and it can make them think twice about doing it again. It also gives a clear signal that it's not accepted, unlike now where few people seem to make much noise about it.

12. The wild West was a wonderful thing, no? How about survival of the fittest? Ah, the pillars of civilization, everyone fighting for themself.

13. I was talking about your tone, and nothing else. You conveniently chose to change the subject despite seemingly addressing what I said.

If I'm getting anything from this discussion and especially this post, it's that you don't like reading very carefully, and that you either have only one solution that puts all responsibility on the victims, or you're especially talented at circling around the subject. I'd love to hear the other solutions if you have any and be proven wrong about that suspicion.

As far as I know, confidence is one of the most valued traits in this regard. I think you can see how asking can be problematic from that point of view. As far as I know, asking is also not a common thing in this regard. You don't ask 'do you want to kiss', and you don't ask 'do you want to have sex'. For the most part, you read it from what's happening. I'd say Chrizum is exaggerating the issue somewhat, but he has an excellent point.

Those of us who don't worship celebrity culture and can see the entertainment industry for the cesspool it is could see this coming a mile away when America's former favorite TV dad, Bill Cosby, had been accused of rape an assault by dozens of women. If Cosby of all people was this sleazy, then all bets are off for the rest of the industry from now on.

What's funny is that when the sexual assault allegations against Bill Cosby started coming out a few years back, he was immediately called out by his Hollywood and media peers and has basically been persona-non-grata in the entertainment industry ever since (recall Tina Fey and Amy Poehler basically roasting him at the Golden Globes a couple years back).

Fast forward to 2017, and we now know that Cosby wasn't even the tip of the iceberg when it came to the sleaze that has permeated Hollywood culture for decades, all while the Hollywood crowd continues to act holier-than-thou and lectures the rest of us on morality (i.e. how DARE the US elect Trump as its president instead of Hillary). Yet folks in Hollywood and the media haven't nearly gone after Weinstein and all the others accused of sexual assault and misconduct the way they went after Cosby. Maybe it's because Cosby didn't tow the line and virtue signal enough to Democrat / progressive causes (nor raise a shit ton of $$$ for them) the way Weinstein and his cohorts had done for decades to be able to get a free pass on assault and rape.

And to top it all off, this has now spilled outside of the Hollywood circle and over into many other industries such as the news media / journalism and even the political realm. You know things have gone south in a hurry when journalists who for years have carried water for Bill and Hillary Clinton are now throwing Bill under the bus since he's no longer of any use to them.

None that are alive anyway.

Two words:  President Trump.

Seriously.  If you think I'm just joking or being facetious, take a moment and ask yourself this:  if it was Hillary in the White House right now with First Dude Bill back in his old element again, and the Democrats on the verge of retaking Congress in 2018, do you honestly think the corporate media that had backed Clinton 99.9% in the election and had been carrying water for her and her husband for over 2 decades would suddenly decide that NOW would be a good time to blow the lid on all these stories coming out of Hollywood, many of which involve some of their biggest supporters and cash bundlers?

We now know for a fact that stories about Weinstein's victims were repeatedly squashed by the powers that be in the past (just ask Ronan Farrow of the New Yorker and formerly of NBC).  There's no way in hell this stuff would come out in the mainstream press during a Clinton presidency when it would be so damaging to her and her party as Weinstein had been one of her biggest supporters and fundraisers for years now, as are many other A-listers in the industry accused of similar abuse of women.

The only reason the floodgates have opened now is because it's no longer viable for the press to protect the Clintons, and the country's newfound outrage over systemic abuse of women in the workplace can now be harnessed as a weapon to be used against Trump, who himself has been accused multiple times of abuse towards women in the past.

I doubt Louis CK's career is "done", what he's accused of is nothing compared to many others (unless something new has been revealed). It's certainly enough to warrant apologies and ramifications, though, which he has embraced.

An important lesson seems to be one that I thought everyone knew, and that's to steer clear of your subordinates. Your position of authority makes any and all interactions of that sort quite unfair, as you hold leverage over the person who will feel pressure to consent. That should be obvious, but evidently it either isn't obvious or people have thus far just chosen to take advantage of that.

That group is probably the most numerous, and they're full of people who like to tell themselves that they're not guilty of such things because they've never acted without hearing a "no". When you're dealing with someone you have authority over, that "no" is often too dangerous for their careers in their minds.