It's neither possible nor desirable to somehow try to outlaw how people naturally behave – and how others expect them to behave – in their very different ways (and not least their sexual ways) according to their sex. Men form themselves into what are essentially dominance hierarchies, with the high-rankers being sought after by women; who, in trying to get near these individuals, try themselves to ape men in climbing organisations – like the Lib Dem Party. The complication is that women don't compete for status per se, as men do, because status is a measure only of male attractiveness (mate-value); not of the female (which is simply fertility – youth, shape and looks, pretty much). So women 'climb' in whatever way is more their style; like using their sexual charms in subtle – and often not at all subtle – ways.
Picture the Lib-Dem candidate development soiree. It's not hard to see how rendered ridiculous is the idea that any however mild male sexual behaviour is inadmissible in this or any situation, as if there were no corresponding behaviours by women. Such naïvety is the true sexism.
All those Lib-Dem women won't have kept their flirtatious ways under wraps; albeit that deployment may be more unconscious than fully witting. They will have felt flattered by corresponding male behaviour from male high-flyers in the Party. But when in stepped the pretty lardy lump that is Chris Rennard, the ladies were not so much for interesting.
Evidently you do need some other confirmation of mate-value than just being the Party swot. Apparently, it's not OK for the usual low-level sexual interplay to go on if the male isn't a full suit in the attractiveness stakes; even though otherwise it's business as usual. In other words, if it's to female advantage, then usual human life in its ubiquitous sexual aspects is fine; but at moments of women's choosing this can be rescinded and everybody else has to accept this. [And when does this fickleness ever stop? Not when you're well into penetration if the woman retrospectively questions her consent!]
Now, in this light enter Lord Rennard's friendly hand finding the odd lady's knee or back. Anything but the sex of any sex-scandal; a fully public, normally fully exposed appendage everybody had probably grasped and shaken a little earlier. Just part of the usual so low-level it's nearly-invisible sexual banter on view everywhere. Indeed, it's likely in part camaraderie – how the lads get on with each other, extended to the gals so as not to patronisingly leave 'em out.
To what extent was Rennard simply behaving in an expected playful manner by way of reciprocating the signals the ladies were giving off to all and sundry? They might well have been making general unconscious coy come-on signals to the whole room. Men may well feel it ungentlemanly not to acknowledge female projection of presence. And we're still not as far as anything one-on-one here.
Quite how socially incompetent and misanthropic do you have to be to turn this innocuous scenario into a cauldron of abuse?
Anyway, if the hinted extrapolation of this were in any way true – that the Lib-Dem Party is a casting-couch – then the orangey-yellow totty (and it would have to be this category) who made it to be PPC (prospective parliamentary candidate) or better ….. where are they in all this? If they had to sleep their way to the top, don't they think we'd want to hear about it?! Can't think why they're keeping mum.
Well, OK, I'd guess the issue here would be that the high-flyers the girls were prepared to sleep with were not lardy lumps like Lord Chris. This was natural mutual attraction, you understand; not abuse at all. [Not like Lord Lard's wandering mitts.] What's wrong with that, the totty would enquire?
Nothing, except having yer cake, eating it and vomiting it back up.