• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Looking at someone for more than 5 seconds is creepy.

I'm just wondering who is going to time this. I mean some poor schlub might get in big trouble when he only stared at someone for 4 seconds while another guy escaped punishment while staring for 6 seconds, maybe even 7 seconds!!!! I suggest that a whole crew of "Stare Timers" be hired, just as long as nobody stares at them.:lol:
 
Scene: Netflix company. Two co-workers meet face to face in corridor.

Mary: Sam, did you finish that summary?
Sam: Which one?
Mary: That one I asked you to do yesterday.
Sam: You gave me three to do yesterday.
Mary: I did? Um, okay, I think…
Sam: Do you mean the TV series ‘Moronic Democrats’?
Mary: No. Say, are we still going to go with that?
Sam: As far as I know.
Mary: That’s crazy! I thought that was rejected…
Sam: Nope, it’s still on the list.
Mary: Okay well we’ll have to have a meeting about that.
Sam: Do you want me to schedule one for today?

According to my stopwatch we’re up to about 30 seconds of speech so far. During that time Sam was looking at Mary as they spoke. Most of the time Mary was looking at Sam. Both have broken the 5 second rule and will continue to do so. This stupid rule will never work.
 
poweRob said:
I'm thinking it's not when talking but leering from a distance. Sounds like maybe being in one cube and just gawking at someone in another repeatedly.
Click to expand...

I have to be more careful because of my tendency to look in someone's direction when thinking about something completely different. May be I'm not the only one, so folks, watch it...guilty until proven innocent.
 
Lovebug said:
I have to be more careful because of my tendency to look in someone's direction when thinking about something completely different. May be I'm not the only one, so folks, watch it...guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

I do that. Gaze off and I find that I'm usually drawn to lighter colors. So if someone is wearing white it'll draw my eyes to the white but not to the person themselves. So I'll be looking at what's lighter color and be daydreaming about God knows what. Especially if I need to sneeze.

But I bet they have a stalk-like issue going on and there wasn't a policy in place to stop it.
 
poweRob said:
I do that. Gaze off and I find that I'm usually drawn to lighter colors. So if someone is wearing white it'll draw my eyes to the white but not to the person themselves. So I'll be looking at what's lighter color and be daydreaming about God knows what. Especially if I need to sneeze.

But I bet they have a stalk-like issue going on and there wasn't a policy in place to stop it.
Click to expand...

May be so, may be they just thought some did. I get it, they want to protect themselves. Protecting themselves at what cost though. Human interactions aren't always pleasant, even uncomfortable at times. It is part of life. I think we are stepping over the line into an overreactive society where simple human errors are not allowed.
 
Lovebug said:
May be so, may be they just thought some did. I get it, they want to protect themselves. Protecting themselves at what cost though. Human interactions aren't always pleasant, even uncomfortable at times. It is part of life. I think we are stepping over the line into an overreactive society where simple human errors are not allowed.
Click to expand...

I've always detested companies that manage via policy rather than managers. It's pathetically lazy and it causes everyone to be punished and treated like the lowest common denominator.
 
poweRob said:
I've always detested companies that manage via policy rather than managers. It's pathetically lazy and it causes everyone to be punished and treated like the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...

What determines the policies though? I think this goes both ways. May be policies don't have to be that tight when a good HR team is trained to detect individual shortcomings, or may be everyone should lighten up a bit.
In my case, I could blame that guy for looking at my chest, as it did make me a bit uncomfortable, but eyes sometimes wander. If that happens a second or third time, I'll address it.
 
Lovebug said:
What determines the policies though? I think this goes both ways. May be policies don't have to be that tight when a good HR team is trained to detect individual shortcomings, or may be everyone should lighten up a bit.
In my case, I could blame that guy for looking at my chest, as it did make me a bit uncomfortable, but eyes sometimes wander. If that happens a second or third time, I'll address it.
Click to expand...

Friend of mine back in high school had this happen. He got busted by a girl as he was staring at her cleavage but he wasn't doing it for the breasts. He said there was a hair in the middle and saw it and just stared at it. She was flattered because she liked him.

As far as company policy... there has to be some. But it grates me when someone screws up and voila, new company policy laid out on everybody. Today's reference would be internet blocking at work. They lock down internet for everyone because someone was going on youtube too much or something so everyone gets perma blocked from youtube. For me that's where i get a boatload of software tutorials that I use at work. So instead of punishing the jerk to was playing around, I have to go crawling to ask for permission to train myself for work.
 
poweRob said:
Friend of mine back in high school had this happen. He got busted by a girl as he was staring at her cleavage but he wasn't doing it for the breasts. He said there was a hair in the middle and saw it and just stared it. She was flattered because she liked him.
Click to expand...

There I go, looking for hair on my chest. :) Have a great day, gotta go.
 
Lovebug said:
I have to be more careful because of my tendency to look in someone's direction when thinking about something completely different. May be I'm not the only one, so folks, watch it...guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing.

I want them to try to prove I was staring at them rather than just looking in their direction.
 
I don't think any of this is particularly important, but this thread really is a good example of how people automatically add things to an article that don't exist. There are at least three posters that have decided to pretend that the no staring rule must somehow apply when having a conversation with someone. I didn't read about that anywhere in the article, but it is a convenient way to make the new rule seem absolutely ridiculous. Good thing the conversation part was conjured out of thin air.
 
MrPeanut said:
I don't think any of this is particularly important, but this thread really is a good example of how people automatically add things to an article that don't exist. There are at least three posters that have decided to pretend that the no staring rule must somehow apply when having a conversation with someone. I didn't read about that anywhere in the article, but it is a convenient way to make the new rule seem absolutely ridiculous. Good thing the conversation part was conjured out of thin air.
Click to expand...

Are you saying it can't be applied in that way if somebody wants to?
 
Renae said:
I never knew that...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/netflix-five-second-staring-rule/
I was raised that if someone was speaking to you you look them in the eye and respect them.

Didn't know I was raised to be a creepy harasser... sheesh.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, this whole harassment thing has gotten way out of hand. For sure REAL harassment, including sexual harassment, and bullying has always existed in the work place and that should not be acceptable anywhere. But when people go out of their way to be attractive, especially when they pay a small fortune on hair, makeup, nails, clothing, jewelry/accessories etc. to be attractive, I have a hard time thinking they should feel offended if somebody notices and comments on that. Even when it is the office creep doing it. And if no guy can ever risk being appreciative and/or complimentary to a coworker, or exploring the possibility of a relationship, without running the risk of being labeled 'creepy' or exhibiting harassing behavior, I would see that as a sterile and uninviting place to work.

I met my husband many MANY years ago when we were both working at the same newspaper. But if I was not interested in checking out a relationship there, would his asking me out have constituted sexual harassment? And I wouldn't have given up the office banter, the jokes, the teasing, for anything even though sometimes somebody did say something offensive or made me uncomfortable. And there was the occasional socially awkward office creep that would sometimes become the topic of conversation on coffee breaks or at lunch, but we didn't even try to get him or her fired. We were adults and didn't need protection against our own feelings.

But that was a different era when guys could be guys without needing sensitivity training and/or reprimand. And it opened doors for those of us who understood that and didn't make everybody walk on eggs when they were around us for fear we would feel uncomfortable or be offended.
 
Mason66 said:
Are you saying it can't be applied in that way if somebody wants to?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that if there is an update to policy that says not to stare at people for more than five seconds because people find that creepy, and the response to it is that you were raised to look at people when you talked to them, those two things are not incompatible. They having nothing to do with each other. It could be abused just like any other rule.
 
TheGoverness said:
There's definitely staring that can become creepy, but that seems a bit much to me. And not asking for phone numbers? Not everyone asks someone for their contact info because they want a hook-up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, people in film crews ask stars for their number to talk football.
 
Renae said:
I never knew that...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/netflix-five-second-staring-rule/
I was raised that if someone was speaking to you you look them in the eye and respect them.

Didn't know I was raised to be a creepy harasser... sheesh.
Click to expand...

"I was raised to speak nose to nose, wink and purse my lips during a conversation. Oh well, who knew I was raised creepy."

Really? You're gonna blame your parents?



MrPeanut said:
I'm saying that if there is an update to policy that says not to stare at people for more than five seconds because people find that creepy, and the response to it is that you were raised to look at people when you talked to them, those two things are not incompatible. They having nothing to do with each other. It could be abused just like any other rule.
Click to expand...

But if someone likes to stare for a long time, and lean in close during conversation, maybe touch a little, but it's because of their parents then that's okay right?
 
Last edited:
TheGoverness said:
There's definitely staring that can become creepy, but that seems a bit much to me. And not asking for phone numbers? Not everyone asks someone for their contact info because they want a hook-up.
Click to expand...

But sometimes they do, and that's not wrong, either. It's only a problem when you keep at it and actually harass someone. So many normal relationships haves started with, "Can I have your number?"
 
Renae said:
Didn't know I was raised to be a creepy harasser... sheesh.
Click to expand...
Oh, these types of asinine rules come about because of ongoing personnel problems. I've personally had to come up with similar so-ridiculous-as-to-be-insulting rules to address problem individuals.

Even though we in the United States technically have "at will" labor laws, where you can fire any employee without having to establish just cause, the laws are still written to protect individual employees. Even if the employee is the worst, creepiest person ever, he or she still has numerous tools to fight back against the employer or management.

Netflix itself I would point out still has a large number of distribution warehouses for its DVD services.
You typically don't employ the top-rate in such positions.

OrphanSlug said:
We are developing a very weak and fragile group of people here.
Click to expand...
All employees deserve an work environment free of harassment. Unfortunately there are a large number of individuals who really, really do not get it.

I mean, **** like, "No Tim, you cannot walk up behind Sarah and start touching her back or her hair. What is wrong with you?" ... except you don't say the last part, because Tim is likely to start screaming about age discrimination and paying some lawyer to start a garbage lawsuit.

poweRob said:
I've always detested companies that manage via policy rather than managers. It's pathetically lazy and it causes everyone to be punished and treated like the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...
Lovebug said:
What determines the policies though? I think this goes both ways. May be policies don't have to be that tight when a good HR team is trained to detect individual shortcomings, or may be everyone should lighten up a bit. In my case, I could blame that guy for looking at my chest, as it did make me a bit uncomfortable, but eyes sometimes wander. If that happens a second or third time, I'll address it.
Click to expand...
Unwritten policies and case-by-case management leads to claims of discrimination or unfair treatment.
 
Last edited:
If I am staring, it is likely because the person has purposely made themselves stare-worthy. If there is a good reason for modifying or mutilating your face in a way that makes you unemployable, I would like to hear it.
 
Fishking said:
But sometimes they do, and that's not wrong, either. It's only a problem when you keep at it and actually harass someone. So many normal relationships haves started with, "Can I have your number?"
Click to expand...

And I wonder how many successful relationships have started after multiple, maybe many, attempts to snag a date? Sometimes there may not be love at first sight, but chemistry becomes mutual after you get to know somebody?

Honestly, some of this PC sensitivity stuff seems so extreme to me. I grew up when guys were guys and pursued women or vice versa. And same sex relationships often happened using similar techniques. To suddenly make that improper or creepy just feels wrong and counter productive to me. I like people being allowed to be themselves unless they are dangerous or disruptive.
 
Renae said:
I never knew that...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/netflix-five-second-staring-rule/
I was raised that if someone was speaking to you you look them in the eye and respect them.

Didn't know I was raised to be a creepy harasser... sheesh.
Click to expand...
I agree that sounds stupid. What does that say about anyone automatically assuming it's true just because a single politically biased publication reported an anonymous source giving second hand information? I don't see the justification in instantly condemning and mocking the organisation without actually seeing the rules or at least seeking out more and better confirming sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom