Can you describe the difference in objective terms?
This is one of the biggest reasons that restrictions on speech, let alone ones that seem to be so vague, are so very dangerous. They can be used, and abused, to great effect whereas their net positive effect is perhaps harder to gauge. In the US we do not have many laws that are so open to social interpretation, but with those that we do, we already see regular lawsuits well outside the spirit of the law that individuals hope to win by force of legal and persuasive prowess alone. Even if France might have a more mature legal culture, who's to say such things will not change?
This is why I think when looking at laws, we should not see things through the most positive and optimistic lens, but through the most critical and cynical lens. The reason is because that lowest common denominator is shown, time and again, to end up being what the law will be disproportionately used for.
Wasn't this always the biggest problem: People not knowing. I also didn't get any problems and I'm close to your age - but I listened to a lot of stories from my wife in which people were doing things that may be considered offensive or even harassment, and without knowing.
All the big metoo cases, for example, are not people who didn't know. They are people who were activly predatory over many years. The accidents aren't what are being targeted here. It's mostly men activley and knowingly abusing the fact that they can get away with it.
The first you learn of it is when the cops come up and interview you.
You indicate ignorance and also that you think the woman was a shit for dobbing you in.
You indicate ignorance and also deep remorse - you're genuinely hurt that you harassed this woman and potentially several others.
You indicate ignorance and feign deep remorse - you actually think the woman was a shit. You bring up sex with strangers again and the police see that you have form.
There's a difference in what's going to happen in these cases. The fact that the police think it's worth investigating a report of a crime doesn't mean they'll react in the same manner to different circumstances.
That's the key to your comment. You cannot ever know for certain if your conduct offends someone. Some people get offended if you look at them the "wrong" way. I don't think you should be fined for accidentally offending someone.
But, roughly: If you would greet anyone in the same situation (man, woman, child, beautiful or ugly, old or young), then you can greet the person. France has not outlawed greeting your colleagues in the office.
On the other hand, if you would not greet everyone in the same situation, you are a harasser. You do not greet random people in the Paris métro. Thus, if you greet an attractive woman in the Paris métro... well, I don't know if you are technically a harasser under this law, but just don't do it. It's not hard, you know how to do it with other people.
You do not "make dirty noises, comments and whistle" at men in the street. Please don't do that to women either? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/30/uproar-in-fran...
I've seen a lot of negative news about France lately, that it's getting to the point that I might never see myself visting there, despite knowing it would probably have lot to offer in terms of experiences. Where do you draw the line? I think I'm a fairly reasonable individual, and if I speak with someone I'll cut it short if they seem uncomfortable... But it seems pretty crazy that you could have someone call the cops on you just for striking up a conversation.
Seriously, cat-calling is a different beast entirely. nothing like walking down the street to pass a group of men who exclaim very loudly, "Well, she was ugly in front but look at that ass!"
I had a customer literally drool forget his sentences every time he saw me. He'd follow me around the store and talk to me. Other folks would step in. He left me a card - at work! - telling me he'd stop, but also exclaiming how sexy I was and how much he adored me. I had asked him to stop. He had noticed I disappeared when he came into the store. He finally did stop, but it took months of discomfort.
I had a boss that would "accidentally" brush up against my breasts or ass. Small place with no recourse, and I had to quit.
There is a lot of area between these two, and I think it should be quite obvious that they are wrong, but it happens nonetheless. There is a huge difference between a nice chat or nicely asking someone out in a way that respects them and this sort of stuff. Save for the one dude that probably thought I was a prostitute, folks in Amsterdam treated me better (I was there for a fun weekend alone, spouse stayed home) - including the dude that propositioned me after chatting in the coffee shop. He was really respectful and simply asked. I talk to random people on planes and other places willingly. Most conversation is fine so long as the other person is reasonable, and halts when I ask the conversation to stop.
So you can't ask people you don't know out on a date? That's harassment now?
The main thing with the "random person you've never spoken to" is this: It might be something you do from time to time. It might be something she deals with once or twice a week - or daily. You might be respectful and asking, but many others aren't. If you haven't even had a brief conversation, she likely knows it is all based on looks and absolutely nothing about her personality.
You won't personally be harassing her, no. But overlooking this stuff is being ignorant of how she might be treated on a daily basis and it can make you part of the problem, depending on the context of the situation. It isn't like it is hard to simply move on: You likely do this with people that aren't prospective dates in your eyes.
Yes, it's sad that you may lose the love of your life this way. It's sadder that many women lose their actual lives over this kind of thing.