It sucks to be thought of as only a sexual object.

Some men are rude and aggressive assholes. I'm not suggesting that's ok. Rather, it's the attitude that men should be forbidden from interacting, in any environment, with women other than in ways very narrowly prescribed.

This is from the article:

"There is no reason to think that a good-looking female poker player in her 20s is interested in any way in an old, egg-shaped, ugly man."

In other words, if you're not young, thin, and beautiful, you don't deserve sex. You shouldn't ever even attempt to meet someone or befriend them, because you're only fit to hide away from the Beautiful People.

This is the core message of the article, not that women are subject to harassment in poker tournaments. Rather, that "uppity" men shouldn't be stepping outside their "league".

How is that any different from saying a black man approaching a white woman is inherently wrong? Or that a gay man hitting on a straight one is doing something that inherently deserves a violent response?

Some younger women enjoy dating older men. And vice-versa.

all her body language said she did not want to continue a conversation.

Her body-language said it! And he should have picked up on it! That's not passive-aggressive in the slightest, expecting someone to pick up on subtle social cues who may not share a similar upbringing or psychology.

What I see in the article is a sad, socially inept older man, unable to pick up on subtle hints, is simply trying to make friends with a woman he finds appealing. Yet the author, and you, seem to feel this constitutes some sort of crime. What punishment do you advocate? Community service? Prison? Psychiatric treatment?

So his advances on her were not only uninvited, but repeatedly rejected.

Why must engaging other people in public places in conversation be invited? Do we not, all of us, regardless of gender, race, age, or looks, have a right to participate in society? Weren't you just a few days ago angrily (so many of your posts seem to be angry) decrying the restaurant that was unhappy about the woman who brought her developmentally-disabled child who bothered other customers, and you were insisting on the child's right to be there?

Do you not see the double standard here? Child: free to yell & scream in a restaurant, bothering the patrons. Man: not allowed to speak to a woman who is "better" than him.

The author goes on to call the man stupid, and he quite likely was. In which case, it should be clear that subtle passive hints underlying a veneer of politeness will not be very effective. So I do not share your opinion that his advances were rejected, if the communication is so roundabout that a simplistic guy would simply not get it. "Fuck off" can do wonders.

This may be news to you, but "no" means NO.

He gave her his phone number! That's tantamount to rape!

That's why his sexuality is dirty and deserves contempt.

You're supporting the notion that male sexuality is dirty. This man was boorish. But that doesn't mean that men should be confined to social strait-jackets. He's an individual. In some parts of the world, women can't go anywhere unescorted. Haven't we determined that a socially-liberal society where individuals are free to live their lives unimpeded by restrictive religious or moral codes are preferable?

he insulted her integrity by assuming she'd cheat on her fiancee for him

Many people have a different view of commitment. Are you against open marriages and polyamory? Anyway, the article says he asked. You're the one jumping to conclusions. Was he oblivious and daft? Probably. But this is insulting? No.

She has the right to not be forced into conversations she does not have.
forcing dialog she does not want to have.
insulted her rights as a human being by not respecting her rights to privacy ("are you still engaged?")

These reveal the complete intellectual bankruptcy of your position.

Conversing with someone in public is not force. And no, a person does not have the right to be not be conversed with. If someone's behavior veers into misdemeanor or criminal harassment, she can involve the police. But as far as I know, in most civilized nations we have the notion of free speech. You do not have the right to not be spoken to by others, anymore than you have the right to not be advertised to, to not see people you might not like in public (them colored folks should keep to their own!).

I seem to recall a while back you were strongly on the side of women breast-feeding in public. Saying that you have a right not to be spoken to by someone you aren't interested in hearing from, is akin to the argument you have a right to not see a boob. It's puritanism and repression, just in a different form.

Saying someone can only open their mouth when specifically allowed is no different in principle from social mores that dictated what length of skirt a woman must wear. "Can't have those ankles showing, you'll endanger morality."

There was no force involved. If he grabbed hold of her, then he would be committing assault. I didn't see a mention of that in the article. She was free to walk away, or clearly and without ambiguity tell him to stop talking to her. Furthermore, asking someone a personal question in no way violates someone's right to privacy. That's what makes it a question.

If you honestly believe the rights of the women described in the article were violated, I invite you to describe the specific legal remedies you would choose to enact. What sort of penalties should men face for trying to make friends with women?

Are poker tournaments likely unpleasant environments with people acting this way? Absolutely. The game is newly popular with a younger crowd. There's definitely room for asking people to behave with better manners. But I dislike the insinuation that it is somehow wrong, for anyone, of any age, ethnicity, culture, gender and sexuality to attempt to interact with the people around them, whether it's to say hi, talk about politics, sell them on their religion, or request an orgy. They are all forms of communication. None involve force. Dictating what people can or cannot say is a violation of rights; real ones, not imaginary ones.

I'm all for people treating each other respectfully (something you could do better yourself). But that's not something that can be forced.

I rather expected better of you dryice. My mistake.

if i were to send you a picture , you would need a dual screen monitor setup to view the whole thing :)

I was being sarcastic. But, since you asked, here you go