1. I think it is plain that Georgiansilver's original post that so inflamed the C**ntess was a throwaway line that did not merit the weight placed upon it.    In short an obvious overreaction by the C**ntess.

2. Surely most people are pleased, at least in part, by the statement or implication that they are sexually attractive. What is improper is any actual or implied threat - but such threats occur, whether they be of the kind discussed here, or the generic threat of violence that may be uttered merely by stance (although it is more usually offered to men than to women, perhaps the legacy of territorial or other embattlement in previous generations).

3. Generally I think that folk clubs events are less truly threatening (sexually or otherwise) to women than most other events. Nonetheless I have posted to the Rochester Sweeps thread some comments that maybe relevant here (in edited form): -

"Some factors that will tend to militate against my daughter's further enjoyment of "folk sessions" (a shame since she herself is such a spectacular performer and there one of the two or three in total of performers present under 25) include navel-gazing snigger snogwriters, amplification (ie "open mic"), the absence of folk song, and lecherous old men who although they are unable to intimidate her may intimidate others. There was a bad example on one night at Sweeps(not, I think, a Cat member), who was fawning over a particularly contemporary singer, and making a fool of himself persisting in trying to kiss reluctant young(ish) women. Oddly, I remember her mother being critical of one or two very respected figures of the 60s and 70s folkocracy who allegedly were more (and equally unsuccessfully) interested in her nether regions than in her voce or guitar work. These were not limited to primary supporters of fatlib."