Is wolf-whistling a sex crime?

Even worse than taking off the night-shirt !

Why could it? Explain a bit more.

If anyone missed the series recently on "Sex and the church" or it might have been "The church and sex" then do find it on the net and watch it. An eye-opener on what the bible actually says about sex, and what Jesus said in particular (very little) and how marriage was not a church matter for a long time, but a civil contract between man and woman.

An interesting documentary.

Here it is

Good posts POGS, grumppa and Elegran!

Thats why I always advise people to read the bible themselves, to see what it actually says. Rather than rely on others to say what is actually in the bible.

Trouble came when people couldnt actually read for themselves.

And they believed what the priests told them! Then more trouble when it was translated into English and a lot of things were shown to be later additions.

I agree kittylester.
I am amazed at the way the thread has gone and that so many people lack a sense of humour!
Don't be bullied pompa- we need more humour- stay with us.

For pompa (but don't whistle it)

www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deanmartin/standingonthecorner.html

I have just returned to this thread, in particular to try and find out what there was in pompa's posts that might be regarded as offensive or objectionable in any way - I can find nothing at all - if there had been then they would have been deleted.

He is expressing a view on how men and women are initially attracted to one another - and I see nothing to argue with there. I was attracted on first sight of my OH to how he looked - it was only much later that I learned about his intelligence, loving nature and extraordinary dry humour.

It is human nature to first see how someone looks and it takes time to appreciate their other qualities.

To address the OP: wolf-whistling is not something I would object to, unless the recipient seemed uncomfortable in some way and then they should stop. It is a time-honoured way of expressing appreciation.

Clearly physically obstructing someone (male or female) is not acceptable.

We cannot become so "right on" that we deny our human natures; or indeed lose our sense of humour.

Come back pompa.

I suppose I am one of the people who is supposed to have bullied pompa. And I have been accused of calling him an "inadequate old geezer" actually I did no such thing. I said I thought the post was from an i o g, because it didn't seem funny to me. I can only judge someone on here from the things they post , so I would never say they 'were' anything only what I think they appear from the things they post.

No 'suppose' in my opinion.

The difference being? Splitting hairs me thinks

So you weren't saying pompa is an inadequate old geezer then, only that he appears to be an inadequate old geezer!

I'm sure the distinction will come as a great relief to pompa .

In any case the comment was far too harsh.

My thoughts exactly, petallus! What a get-out clause...

Precisely, Ana and petallus
Sickening

So it 's OK to post that you appear to be . . . . whatever we feel like calling you? You won't be offended? It is useful to know that.

So we can be as insulting as we like as long as we put 'you appear to .......' Glad we have cleared that up.
Surprised GNHQ haven't posted anything here- suppose it is a weekend and short staffed.

I did notice a post earlier this morning saying that someone 'appeared to be' an embittered old woman, or something of that sort. Seems to be the new version of 'personal attack'. 'Impersonal attack', perhaps?

Or 'attack by speculation'?

It's best to criticise a post rather than the person who wrote the post, or even the person one thinks wrote the post (i.e. the person who appears to have written). It's called playing the ball not the man. Easy really.

I mean it's a simple idea to criticise ideas or beliefs rather than the people who appear to entertain those ideas.

So saying that a post appears to have been written by an inadequate old geezer is definitely improper, according to the rule of playing the ball not the man.

Providing you are not saying that someone is something or using offensive language I think everyone is entitled to express their opinions on things that are posted.
And I am old enough and wise enough not to take any such comments to heart. I do find it incredibly amusing that my "inadequate old geezer" produced such a response while the remarks about those of us who didn't like the wolf whistling, such as "man haters" and "must be lesbian" are supposed just to be accepted. Double standards again!!!!

I made no comments like those, trisher, nor did I say (or even think) that such comments should just be accepted.