I was more than a little creeped out at how much screen time was given to the Romeo and Juliet law. Did Bay get charged with stat-rape at some point?

The woman in the "experiment" is a total hypocrite. In fact, that little undercover experiment shot the credibility of everyone else's story, and the video in general.

She dressed in a way clearly meant to elicit reaction. heck she even said it was "provocative" hello, the word provocative literally means "voice call out forward" ... pro + vocare (latin for call, voice) Imagine a guy walking around with 100 bills taped all over his body, he'd be an idiot if he expected no one would look at him. If he was robbed, women would ask him .."huh why did you tape $100 bills all over you?"

The little BS hidden camera thing is clearly put on someone who's looking to find people to yell things out, for the purpose of "proving a point" and making a problem appear more serious than it is. If it happens to every day women constantly - then why not choose a woman that's dressed more "normally" ?

Obviously some of the more physical assault-like things are inexcusable, but anything else, verbal or otherwise, is just men doing what society (including women) have taught them to do: be aggressive, be bold.. why is it that...

good looking guy that calls out = man that is bold and goes after what he wants
ugly guy that calls out = creep that harasses.

And women go around wondering why "men don't understand and it's so hard to teach them..?" maybe try being a little honest and consistent for starters?

I can't decide if this creeps me out, or turns me on....I'm so confused.

Hadn't heard The Scala & Kalacny Brothers version - it was brilliant, thanks!

okay - I'm successfully creeped out.

that seriously just creeped me out.

Traffic accidents would be virtually eliminated. The insurance industry probably has the most to lose when it comes to self driving cars, without a risk to insure against they can't make any money.

Regarding features like this, I've just got a new Golf with adaptive cruise control. This measures the distance between you and the car in front and maintains a pre set gap up to a set speed. They have a lane assist option too, like the video here but I don't have that and I'm really glad. The cruise control is teaching me to not react when a car slows down in front of me or pulls into the lane in front of me because the car is doing it for me.

I've noticed I'm letting my eyes wander for longer when looking at the radio, or flicking through options on the display. It's not intentional, taking my eyes off the road is dangerous. I know that. But I can steer between white lines using my peripheral vision so as long as nothing really bad happens the car will save me, so the temptation to look at something just a little longer creeps in subliminally. I don't want to be doing it, and I try not to. Thing is, if you're driving a long way it's pretty certain you're not going to have the self control to be 100% focussed on the road every millisecond.

I can't wait for driverless cars. I can't help but think that features like this being drip fed us are not really that helpful. It's just teaching us to pay less attention when actually the cars aren't that clever yet.

And to anyone who's going to say 'if you take your eyes off the road you're a bad driver, you should be able to keep concentrating, blah blah blah', you don't understand how the mind works. Your body adapts to the situation you're in. When I drive an auto I don't go for the clutch all the time, my body adjusts. It's not a conscious thing, it's automatic. it's the same with these driver aids, your body learns to take advantage of them.

@milkman
Thanks for your great deal of thought on this subject.

However, I have ZERO regret over not "socking the creep."

It was inappropriate under those circumstances to hit this tiny guy. I was much bigger than him and I could have really hurt him. His assault on me was psychological more than physical -- my first response was to laugh! He didn't hurt me physically, clearly wasn't assaulting any more, and I was going to attack him?

Excuse me, but that seems a very male response to a situation. I don't see a single woman in this comment stream writing that I should have slugged or kneed him. Every comment about physically striking him came from men -- correct me if I am wrong, I might have the gender of some posters incorrect.

I am very clear, after thinking about this for a long time, that my single regret is that I didn't call him out verbally. It was my first regret, and I struggled to get to the place where I wasn't ashamed of my lack of action in not calling him out. I got myself out safely and that was the most important thing that had to happen. I did that. I was successful in protecting myself. I won.

But I learned from this -- if it happens again, because of this experience, I am prepared next time to SHAME THE HOLY HELL OUT OF HIM.

That is, IF I can do it safely. My first priority will always be to protect myself.

So if I do not feel threatened physically, I will call the perv out in such a way as to stay safe and embarrass the hell out of him. I do so want to "strike a blow" on behalf of all girls and women who have to suffer this shite, and maybe be a role model for any women and girls who happen to be watching.

If I feel threatened with additional physical assaults, I WILL use my training to protect myself -- which starts with body language and a strong NO, and physical strikes if necessary.

Here's a little factoid for you -- 78% of assaults on women are by single unarmed assailants. As we were taught in class, they are looking for a victim, not a fight. Strong body language, strong use of voice -- that is often all that is needed to protect yourself. Assholes will run away when you show you are willing to stand up for yourself.

No need to hit anyone, except with your chi.

@bareboards2 and ChaosEngine -

I actually spent a fair amount of time thinking about this after watching the video. The conclusion that I came to is that in bareboards2's situation, I agree that probably the "best" response would be make a scene / speak up / shame the guy. For a couple of key reasons:

First, there are two possible goals / longterm objectives to any response here. One, and the most important, is for the woman/person being harassed to get out of the situation as quickly as possible and suffer as little physical or psychological damage as possible. Second, ideally the person doing the harassing/assault ought to be discouraged from behaving the same way in the future.

Calling the assaulter out is probably, in most situations, the best way to optimize both of those outcomes. A physical response like taking the guy down / kicking him in the balls might do an OK job of accomplishing both goals also, but it is probably more risky in general. Also, the specifics of the situation might not play out in favor of it -- it might easily happen with a huge strong dude versus a woman with NO self defense training.

BUT, I also agree with ChaosEngine. Bareboards2, I'm not a psychologist or anything, but it seems like a lot of your regret and lingering bad feelings about your situation come as a result of deciding not to speak up OR respond physically with violence. While I agree that speaking up would probably have been the best response, I'd wager that you'd have felt better if you had socked the creep; or at least incapacitated him enough to fully get out of the situation. And he would (probably) have been less likely to do it again in the future if that had happened; but that is a far lesser concern than your physical and emotional state after the incident.

I guess what I mean to say is that sometimes when we are in a real-life situation, under pressure and caught unprepared, it might be the case that a less-than-ideal solution to the situation might be better than holding back and doing nothing. Maybe.

I hope I don't cause any offense with any of that, I just found this whole comment thread very interesting and find myself agreeing with different aspects of many of the differing opinions.

The guy in a suit (1:07) was staring AT HER FACE. Why'd he get the slo-mo treatment and tagged as a creep?

His internal monologue could have been, "Ok so, power lunch with the boss at 1230, head over to the squash court for a couple rounds, swim a couple laps... HOLY SHIT! Is that Megan from Legal? Her hair looks amaz... oh wait, that's not Megan. Shit. Totally stared. Glad some undercover videographer didn't catch that and make me look like a total perv."

What I don't feel is fair is if the guy is hot, staring is sexy, if he isn't, it's harassment. It's only bad if it's not wanted. How the fuck is a guy supposed to know?

Most of the video's examples are SOLIDLY in the harassment borders. I just don't like how looking is bad unless the woman is attracted to the guy. That's just not fair.

Awesome, and yet about a 7.2 on the creeping-me-right-out scale.

I must have been doing that "move" a lot while playing Far Cry 3. Creeping through the forest, maximum stealth, using a bow, inching closer.... and I'm dead, not by gun or real enemy, but a fucking emu or komodo dragon.

Looks like an American Woodcock (snicker).

These well-camouflaged little guys spend most of their life tentatively creeping through the underbrush, effectively off-setting the sound of their own movements by moving "in-tune" with the rhythms of the forest and appearing as leaf-litter gently swaying in the wind.

I don't know, maybe a misfiring of that instinctual behavior when confronted with our own artificial rhythms might be what we're seeing here?

I've always been ambivalent with those kind of people. Their actions and reactions either cause derisive humour or outright hostility. I kinda get the creeps if I ever have to talk to them, due to their unnatural and disturbing ways of thinking and acting. Most of the time, I kinda just want them to shut up and maybe just live their lives silently. They probably wouldn't have any troubles if they didn't broadcast their way of life to any who will listen.

I'm ok with gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgenders though. They don't bother me.

Oprah is another dim-bulb that promotes these types...
Seniors, in particular, are easy prey for these con artists, probably because they've lived long enough to see friends and family die.
My mother - suffering the early symptoms of dementia - put her and her 3rd husband deeply into debt because of these creeps. After she was institutionalized, I went through her paperwork and discovered the letters that she had written to various psychics asking for help. It broke my heart -- once they had her hooked they sent her endless letters each promising to reveal big secrets to her and she dutifully sent them money time and time again.
Ellen, show some backbone...