**
It's 4 AM and you're a fly on the wall in a Dublin elevator--and two thirtyish people step in. The man says to the woman:"Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"
She says 'No'; the two go their separate ways. Your article mentions '...Rebecca Watson's recent experience being propositioned in a hotel elevator.' An offer of coffee now constitutes a proposition? Have we really descended this far?
**
I defend the right of people to proposition one another--but polite people should take care to phrase their propositions deniably--to reduce discomfort or hurt feelings in the event of non-acceptance. If a coffee offer is now deemed a gnat's-eyelash from rape, I suggest something such as, 'In another country, during another epoch, it would be shocking indeed for a person like me to offer a cup of coffee to a person such as you, wouldn't it?'
**
Thanks Mike. I have voiced no viewpoint on whether it's a good idea--as that would depend on atmospherics of which neither of us is remotely aware. Sorry if my hyperbole momentarily sidetracked our to-and-fro: Here is the essence of our disagreement: I am not willing to concede that a polite, witty, utterly deniable, dignity-preserving proposition cannot be delivered within the confines of an elevator. You believe the feat impossible. Many positive relationships emerge from extremely unlikely beginnings. My advice: Make no silly categorical concessions.
**
Thanks for your contribution, drst. I suggest you re-listen to Watson's video: The person was not a complete stranger--nor does she claim he pursued her into the elevator. The quotation Watson attributes to the man is clearly non-verbatim; I would very much like to hear his description of the event. Nice try--and smart of you, imho, to stay anonymous: The training wheels are clearly still needed.
**
Okay, so never at 4 AM--is that the take-home message? 1 AM is okay? Quite amusing that you think 'sex' is the thing being objectified: An abstract noun! Again--we observe the puritannical position, seeking to institute universal, international 'culture-neutral' rules, irrespective of the relationship or vibe present between the two adults. Efforts to institute such arbitrary rules strike me as boring. Are all dainty, deniable 'etchings'-like propositions uncaddish? Of course not. Should a universal, situation-independent rule be put in place [2AM: fine / 4AM: misogynist]? No.
**
You're quite incorrect, Rebecca--that's not at all what Watson and Myers are saying. They are saying that their intuitions should be binding on everyone, because they are based in Awareness and Purity. People who don't see it their way 'just don't get it' = are misogynists, trolls etc. **
Yes--Dawkins crossed the line, as people occasionally do in online debates. He shouldn't have addressed Watson [sic] as 'Muslima' and indeed engaged in considerable stupidity; he allowed Watson to get under his skin--always a dangerous indulgence. Should Dawkins apologize, however, I very much hope he doesn't go back one millimeter on his kernel of common sense: "...the 'slightly bad thing' suffered by Rebecca was not even slightly bad, it was zero bad. A man asked her back to his room for coffee. She said no. End of story."
**
I stand corrected--thanks Jerome: Dawkins wasn't addressing Watson, with his 'Dear Muslima'. [Mini-sorry too to Richard Dawkins--who I adore.]
Still--I think that aspect of Dawkins' argument was quite unbeneficial. Had he simply stayed on his fundamental point, without that exasperated-sounding stuff, he'd have been in the clear.
