[shmidley]

This is very simple. Women have an instinctive revulsion of anything that could be construed as sexual. This is no doubt a relic of our early days as a species, where a sexual context that a woman had not pre-approved could mean a costly nine month pregnancy. This is why its not just dick jokes that women consider offensive, but even something as simple as calling a hat cute. If it can be construed from your words that you are a male who sexually desires females, then the words will result in women taking offense. It doesn't matter if its not directed at any woman present, or if the idea of a presenter sexually assaulting a conference-goer is inherently absurd. These are our instincts, and you can't change them.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why this is your problem to solve.

[summerdown2]

> Women have an instinctive revulsion of anything that could be construed as sexual.

Do you have a source for this information, or is it, as it appears, complete rubbish?

[illuminate]

All pop (and most academic) evo-psych is absolute rubbish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_stories

[shmidley]

The "probably" part is definitely a "just-so" story. It is unfalsifiable. As for the hypothesis that the revulsion is instinctive, well, the only other possibility is that it is learned. But if its learned, then this conversation wouldn't be happening in the first place. It wouldn't be a big deal. The only reason this conversation is even capable of happening is because everyone already implicitly believes that women and only women are instinctively repulsed by direct or subtle sexuality that isn't pre-approved, that is, it is a violation of their core values and therefore we have a problem to be solved.

If men will admit to themselves what they already know and believe, they will be better prepared to handle themselves to avoid conflict with their female counterparts.