I'm sorry to go on about this, but I had to clarify this, and I trust you understand why.
I'm quite disturbed at just how easily people fall into the trap of essentially labelling people as criminals, abusers and "predators", or relating to people as criminals, abusers and predators, WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE. Forget "guilty until proven innocent", this is even worse. it's "guilty despite no crime or abuse even taking place in the first place". It's "woman was a bit creeped out by odd or asshole-ish behaviour, therefore man is a predator and abuser". No, not even that, it's "I've decided woman should have been creeped out even if she wasn't, therefore the man is an abuser and predator". Please, please tell me this makes you think



!!!! and you understand how dangerous, and how
wrong this way of thinking is.
There is only ever one reasonable and acceptable situation in which you can relate to a person as a sexual predator or rapist- that is, when a court of law has found them guilty on the basis of a jury's being convinced by evidence that such a crime took place and the person in question did it. Gods help us if people don't understand this.
It is a violation of all social justice to suggest this man is a date-rapist UNLESS A COURT HAS FOUND HIM GUILTY OF SUCH- NOT just because you think a woman should be creeped out by manipulative or selfish behaviour.
I trust this helps explain why I took such exception to Yeoman Randi's "have you not heard of date-rape?" comment. Yes. Yes I have. But I wait until it has happened or been attempted before denouncing someone as a date-rapist.