The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
Prey is to Predator as Woman is to (blank): The answer is Man
Posts
Have you ever ducked out of something and used an excuse? I know i do it all the time. And sometimes after that I change my mind.
No. Actually, its "probably not to roughly the probability that you're going to get murdered this year in the U.S.". I covered it, with links to the relevant statistics, because i was tired of people saying "oh its reasonable fear lots of people get raped" without actually knowing what the rape statistics are. And while those statistics are completely and utterly horrifying its largely because the majority of rapes are not attacks in elevators. It is horrifying because its people raping their friends, wives, acquaintances, and kids (and various combination of those) and they do it primarily in the victims house, a friend of the victims house, and schools.
Misandry is hatred of men, and yes, these assumptions that this unlikely circumstance, insanely unlikely even, is a reasonable fear is precisely that. It is precisely the same as being afraid of a black guy because he is black and walking down the street at night and then claiming its not racism because some black men mug people on streets at night.
So... what it really looks like to (ugh) is that this is really some sort of "How dare you talk to me." type of scenario.
Alternatively: "What is a great way to get some internet pageviews other than making a fake controversy and posting it online, maybe I'll sell some calendars that sexualize women, oh the delicious irony!"
There are two possibilities to this.
1) That statement implies that he knew about what she was talking about and really wanted to let her know that he was not objectifying her. In which case he was not objectifying her. He actually specifically acknowledged her desires and ideas and rights and identity right there in his request! This is true even if he wanted sex.
2) He did not know what she was talking about and said it because he didn't want his suggesting to come off as requesting sex. In which case he was not objectifying her because he was not asking for sex and treating her like an object.
And a third, but i am not going to bother with that one.
So it sounds like he was in or around the bar while she was in or around the bar. To my mind, that would have been the place to approach her.
Now, I am willing to give, as you have, Otis the benefit of the doubt at least insofar as he was probably tired and might have had a couple of drinks in him. I've said as much earlier in the thread. But he had many more options than you're acknowledging, which range from choosing a different place to engage her (e.g. the bar itself, on the walk from the bar to the elevator, while she was in the elevator and he was not, etc.) to choosing a better way of starting the conversation. If he really just wanted to talk about something he found interesting, why didn't he just start with, for example, "I thought you had some very interesting things to say about [topic]. I was wondering if you could expand on [specific statement]." And so on.
Maybe don't have the first words out of your mouth be something that can be construed as a sexual proposition if you're in an environment where the propositionee can't put some substantial distance between the two of you.
2)No, "don't take this wrong way" means, "what I'm about to say can be taken more than one way, so please bear with me as I try to make sure that my point comes across." This is a far cry from, "You aren't going to like what I'm about to say."
Again.
What is it about a sexual proposition that is different from any other, if the proposition is not done in a threatening manner. How would it be any different if he had asked her for dinner the next day? Or coffee the next day? Or a light for his cigarette so he could smoke once he got back to his room?
We have so far a number of statements that it indeed is terrible and threatening, but no statement to explain why. At least, not reasonable statements.
Why are they not reasonable statements?
1) Asking the question does not put the person at more risk
2) There is no implied overtly threatening behavior. He did not "lean in strongly". He did not "stand behind her very close". He did not do any of the things on her list. Nothing about his behavior besides the question is implied as threatening
3) the question itself does not imply threat. Hell, it was even worded in a way as to conform to the social graces expected wherein one might want to retain the current relationship status.
This is possible, but in light of the fact that he said, "I find you very interesting," it does not seem particularly plausible. Presumably, if he found Ms. Watson interesting, he would have spent some time (whether while attending a panel at the conference or while at the bar later on) listening to some of the things she had to say. If she focused to the degree it seems that she did on issues of the sexual dynamics within the atheist/skeptic community, I think it's quite likely that he would have picked up on some of that.
I might disagree with that. It says "I understand that you might take this the wrong way". And it usually is followed up by a statement or question that the person isn't going to appreciate for some reason. The way we can easily see this from the language is that there is a "wrong way" to take the statement and the "wrong way" is never spelled out. Ergo that "wrong way" is probably how the statement was going to be taken, and that "wrong way" is "wrong" in a way that is not simply "incorrect as to my meaning" because absent anything explicit we can't "know" which meaning was the correct one.
And it is so in this situation. If he knew what she was all about he might have said it because he knew that she might think he was objectifying her. If he didn't then he might have said it because he didn't want to come off as someone who just wanted sex [or maybe he was simply making it even harder for mutual knowledge to occur]
Him: "Would you like to have a drink sometime?"
Her: "Oh, sorry, no thanks--"
Him: "Why not?!"
And suddenly he's calling her a slut and a tease and a frigid bitch (all at once, mind you) for having the temerity to tell him that he can't have sex in her. Just because a guy seems nice and normal doesn't mean that he won't turn out to be verbally abusive or a stalker towards a woman who doesn't automatically give him what he wants. Of course most guys aren't like this, but enough of them are that it's perfectly reasonable for a woman to feel uncomfortable if a guy hits on her in a place where she doesn't have any means to get away from him if he does turn out to be that kind of guy. Playing armchair actuary with sexual assault statistics isn't even remotely constructive here, because men don't fall into a binary where they're only threatening if they commit some form of physical abuse.
Which is why, just like the claim of "he could have followed her out of the elevator" that it does not become creepy behavior until he says "Why not?!". Note, its the "Why not?!" and not the "Would you like to have a drink sometime?" that is the problem.
Which is why we are concentrating on the "Would you like to have a drink sometime?". Because until he does something that is threatening he hasn't done anything that is threatening.
You believe that being black is a red flag for predatory behavior, just like making a creepy pass is a red flag for predatory behavior? "Silly" is certainly a word for that. It's not the only one.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
This part is interesting. Especialy in light of your repeated: "A elevator is the wrong place to talk to someone ever" atitude. What with this being: "using the physical confines to your advantage in a social situation".
Your allowed to talk to women in elevators, but the rest of us have to shut up?
I think what you're saying is that you do not believe Otis's behavior was creepy. Why not? Because he ended up not assaulting her? Because he wasn't over the threshold of what you, personally, consider creepy? Because all of the woman who have agreed that this behavior is creepy are misandrist?
The totality of the circumstances made it creepy. Could it have been creepier if he had licked his lips, or leaned in on her, or done additional creepy things? Why sure. Does that mean absent those things he couldn't possibly have been creepy? I'm not getting why you think so, or why you keep trying to trim off facts to say that in a different situation it might not have been creepy in the least.
I invite you to consider the possibility that your analogy was just extremely bad, and that insults does not improve it. If Watson had said "Guys, don't get on an elevator with a woman alone" then your walking-down-the-street analogy is valid. She didn't. It's not.
Ah. So, again, you're back to deciding that behavior cannot be creepy or threatening unless it contains an overt threat; inappropriate, boundary-ignoring behavior is of no concern whatsoever.
Watson did not say "All men are creeps" or "hitting on a woman is always creepy".
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Sororities impart this wisdom to 18 year olds. A grown up feminist activist should have come to the same conclusion by now.
No. No, please do not do that, because being black is not a behavior. It is really not the same thing, at all.
It's a standard, normal tactic to ask someone back to your room at 4 am after the bar at a conference when that person has just announced they are tired and heading off to sleep?
It's a standard, normal tactic to ask someone who has been giving talks at the convention all day about not treating the convention like a singles bar back to your room at 4 am after the bar after a conference?
It's a standard, normal tactic to ask someone back to your room at 4 am after the bar at a conference not at the bar, but waiting until the person is in an elevator heading off to bed as they announced they were doing?
It's a standard, normal tactic to ask someone to back to your room at 4 am after the bar at a conference by asking them 'not to take it the wrong way' and then saying you want them to come up for ' coffee'?
Sorry, but I'm familiar with 'modern mating rituals, even as practiced at conventions. What you are talking about is not what Otis did. I don't understand the need to pretend otherwise.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
If a grown-up feminist activist said such a thing, you'd be crawling up her ass and dying about her being a misandrist who thinks she all that and assumes that if a woman leaves a bar by herself that men will just be all over her.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I take it as a given that there are only a few specific circumstances when it is appropriate for some of the first words out of your mouth when speaking to someone who does not know you to be words that can reasonably be construed as a sexual proposition. If we disagree about that, then I think our positions cannot be reconciled, and if you can't wrap your mind around that, then I don't expect that you will ever understand the position I have taken.
Assuming you don't disagree, then I think mythago's phrasing best explains the problem. What Otis did was "inappropriate, boundary-ignoring behavior". For some people, once one boundary is ignored, it may appear as though all bets are off. Certainly, if a person has a demonstrated willingness to cross one line, the worry about other lines being crossed suddenly can become much more real.
You're projecting nonsensical arguments in bad faith. Get a grip.
Because we have been over this many times before. Your construction assumes that he is, by default creepy. And we have asked consistintly what it is that makes it so. You say "its the totality" but not HOW THE TOTALITY makes it creepy.
How does the fucking totality make it creepy besides "it does"?
Man what?
Situation "man and woman are in elevator, guy asks woman for sex in bog standard way" conclusion "not inherently creepy"
Action "man follows woman out of elevator" question "Before the man follows her out of the elevator, has the one that followed her out of the elevator done any wrong?"
Situation "people are walking down street, different sides" Conclusion "not inherently creepy"
Action "one crosses street and gets behind other" question "before one of them crosses the street, has the one that crossed the street done anything wrong?"
The analogy works perfectly.
The point of the analogy was that you claimed that the woman should feel creeped out after the guy asks the question BECAUSE THE GUY COULD FOLLOW HER OUT OF THE ELEVATOR.
But he hadn't done that yet, and asking for sex does not imply he is going to. The possibility of future creepy behavior in otherwise non-problematic situations is not reason to have rational fear.
You flat out suggested that it was wrong for the guy to proposition her because she might think he could follow her out of the elevator. But he might follow her out of the elevator whether or not he propositions. And his proposition probably doesn't increase the chances he is going to do that. And regardless its not creepy until he follows her out of the elevator, at which point it is creepy.
just like the analogy!
No, but you/people are claiming that this situation is creepy. And you have no justification for why it is so. You have no "inappropriate boundary-ignoring behavior" on which to claim a problem. No boundaries were crossed, a question was asked! Nothing was done, no personal space invaded, no threats, no implication, he did not mention to her how much he wanted to pump her raw. He did not do any of those inappropriate bounding ignoring behaviors!
This seems backwards. It bothers me to live in a society where women must leave early or travel in packs in order to avoid being hit on.
If that is, how it is, then I can do my part by being on my best behavior such that I'm not personally adding to the problem (say, by hitting on a girl who's alone in an elevator).
Proud owner of the Veggie, Constellation and Cephalothorax badges
Stop lying. We have been over this no less than 4 times in the last 10 pages. And i have already corrected you personally at least once(i am fairly certain). She talked about sexual harassment he did not say that its not OK to have sex at a conference. She did not say, as far as we can tell, what you are implying that she said.
She talked about objectification which we can actually reasonably surmise from the situation he probably didn't do.
...well, I agree with pretty much everything japan and Grid System and potatoninja have been saying. If one of those posters wrote it, consider it limed.
There are a couple of things that have come up since then that I'd like to address.
Well, that's kind of the point - it happens all the time. So you can either go "this happens all the time... no really take my word for it, no really guys just have faith," or you can go "this happens all the time... and here's an example." It's kind of a catch-22. Personally, I prefer to have specific examples for discussions like these because it gives us something more concrete to talk about.
Just to be clear, I don't think the guy should feel guilty either.
He should just think, "Okay, don't do that again." Other guys watching it should just think, "Okay, don't do what that guy did." Lesson learned. Moving on.
No, it's not a huge moral issue. It's an issue of etiquette that's gotten blown up.
A few things to note.
There's this social expectation, perpetuated by well-meaning dating websites and not-so-well-meaning pickup artists, that men should be confident talking to strange women in public places and asking them out on dates. I reject that expectation. As a general rule, I don't ask women out who I don't know very well.
There are a few reasons for that but the big one is that simply doesn't work for me. Random Supermarket Girl #413 might a boyfriend or husband or is simply uninterested in sex or relationships or finds me unattractive or there might be some other complicating factor that would lead to initial rejection. Even if that doesn't happen, we might have incompatible lifestyles or political views or simply lack of chemistry that would make for an awkward first date that goes nowhere. Consequently, without prior information strongly indicating basic compatibility with me, the probability for failure is far too high.
Yet I don't really have much of a problem getting laid. Why? I have an online dating profile and I network through friends. In other words, I try to get to know people a little bit - whether it's through casual friendly conversation or an online dating profile - before I ask them out. That also means that I don't need to be quite so opportunistic - if a girl is retiring at 4am to her room, or the circumstances are otherwise inconvenient, then there's a pretty good chance I'll talk to her later because we already have common social connections.
This also means that I am relatively confident that a girl isn't going to mentally classify me as a "creeper" when I ask her out - because I'll already have a general sense of compatibility and chemistry.
That said, once in a blue moon it still happens. My radar might be off, I can misinterpret signals, etc. A few years ago I asked a coworker out (let's call her 'Sara') because I thought for sure after months of working together and sharing personal conversations that she was attracted to me. When I asked her out, she got really awkward and quiet and she started avoiding me. Obviously I made her uncomfortable, and I did something wrong there. Am I wracked with guilt over that? No. Is there a possibility that Sara went home and talked to her friends and said, "Man, can you believe that my coworker asked me out today? What a creeper!" Yes, there is a possibility, and sure it bugs me just a little, but I'm not losing sleep over it. If I came across a YouTube video complaining about me, not by name, I might be slightly embarrassed but again I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I tripped and stumbled and life goes on.
As I said a while back, there is no one single true way to ask people out. Everybody is a little bit different. Some girls are okay being asked out in conference hotels, some aren't. Some are okay with dating friends-of-friends, some aren't. Some people think of the gym as a place for singles to meet; other people think that's extraordinarily creepy. So how do you navigate that? Just get to know people first. If you have a few conversations with somebody before you ask them out, you'll get a sense of what they like and what they don't.
It reduces the probability of rejection, reduces the probability of making somebody uncomfortable, reduces the probability that you'll get up going on a date with somebody who turns out to be really annoying. IMO, it's a better strategy all around.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If you actually paid attention to what I've said over the course of this thread, then you'd realize I never said nor implied that it was "always wrong to talk to someone in an elevator."
I've flirted with women in elevators, yes. But I also knew these women beforehand. And I never asked them a yes or no question, or issued an invitation. There's a difference between flirtatious banter between yourself and someone you know and "would you like to come to my room?" with someone you don't know. The latter isn't a flirtatious question, it is an invitation, which is a much more imposing situation than chit-chat.
That bothers you? Seriously? Have you ever tried to talk to someone when they are surrounded by their friends? It's damn near impossible. It's extremely awkward to just walk up to a group of people and try to break into their conversation. You are pretty limited to walking up to loners and trying to strike up a conversation. And I haven't even mentioned trying to flirt with the opposite sex yet, or trying to hook up if that's your thing.
I donno, maybe that's my own mild social anxiety speaking. Or maybe we just understand social norms differently.
Actually no, its wrong for him to talk to women in elevators has been your refrain for 50 pages.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'default creepy', unless you are making the unwarranted assumption that I am claiming men hitting on women is creepy. That's not what I am saying or what, I hope, anyone is saying.
The "totality of the circumstances" means that it's erroneous to pick out one element - they were in an elevator, or it was 4 am - and to say because that element alone does not equal creepy, the whole thing cannot be creepy. That's like saying because if you taste the elements of a cake separately (flour, leavening, raw eggs, butter) most of them are not all that delicious in isolation, a cake cannot be delicious.
Otis's behavior as a whole was inappropriate and boundary-pushing. Why? He had been at the conference where Watson was talking about problems women have at atheist conferencese; he had been at the bar where Watson was talking about these (among other things); he was at the bar when Watson announced that she was tired and intended to go to sleep; he was someone present at the bar but was still essentially a stranger (or at least someone Watson did not know personally at all). Otis, nonetheless, chose to proposition her for sex after all that, and he waited to do so until they were not only alone, but she was in an elevator heading up to her room to sleep (as she had explicitly stated she was doing). Otis apparently had some awareness that his proposition was not entirely cool, because he prefaced it with "don't take this the wrong way" - meaning he was perfectly aware there was a "wrong way" she could take it (hmmm, wonder what that might be) - and asked her to come up to his room 'for coffee', which is an obvious social euphemism but a euphemism nonetheless.
Over and over again, you are trying to strip away parts of this so you can point to it and say, see, not creepy. Hitting on a woman is not creepy! Hitting on a woman at 4 am is not creepy! Elevators are not inherently dangerous! You're refusing to see that when you put all of the things that happened together, it *is* a clear indication that Otis didn't understand or care about appropriate social boundaries.
Are you also in disagreement that ignoring or overriding appropriate social boundaries is behavior that raises the possiiblity of a threat?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I know I'm opening a can of worms by saying this, but maybe it's "extremely awkward to just walk up to a group of people and try to break into their conversation" because, well, it's not really appropriate to do so. They are in public, sure, but they are out with each other.
Just because you feel some compulsion to ask Random Girl X or Random Guy Y out that you just glimpsed in the midst of the friends they decided to go out and socialize with that particular night or day doesn't mean you actually have to go talk to him or her, or that it is absolutely right to do so. That's not to say there aren't situations where it may be appropriate, like if a bunch of friends go to a singles club or something, but I don't know what to tell you. The onus is on you to overcome your own anxiety in that situation rather than follow one of them into a private locale. At least, that's my opinion.
And now to prove I am totally crazy, I'm going to reference a James Blunt song! In "You're Beautiful," James Blunt sees a girl on the train and falls into lust (or love)-at-first-sight with her. The added wrinkle of her being "with another man" notwithstanding, the singer realizes it'll never work out and lets her go.
Life is unfortunately full of those little moments that feel like missed opportunities, but you know what, sometimes missing those opportunities is the right thing to do.
No, a "nonsensical argument" is that if a woman leaves a convention-hotel bar in the wee hours of the morning by herself, after announcing that she is going to bed, then she's going to get hit on by dudes and needs to STFU because even teenage girls know that's exactly what will happen.
One of us needs to get a grip; it's apparently the one of us who missed that Watson was getting screamed at for being misandrist for saying 'hey, this thing that happened is creepy, don't do it'.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
When you say "wrong", how do you mean? Do you mean "I did not create an ideal situation due to my lack of telepathy", or do you mean "I made a mistake, and it's my fault that I did so"?
I'm not convinced that the difference between the two are being stated as clearly as they need to be in this thread.
Who is screaming here? You're making shit up to give yourself the appearance of credibility.
I think we are on the same page. The guy I was responding to, if I understood him correctly, lamented that women needed to travel in groups to avoid being hit on. I was trying to point out that the only time to hit on a girl, if you are so inclined, is when she's alone. Sooooo, if he thinks its sad that girls get hit on when they are alone, and you can't hit on them when they are in a group....when the hell does he think its appropriate to try to meet women?
Actually, no, it wasn't.
I have always put the situation in its proper context. And I have said at least one dozen times that I don't think it is always inappropriate to talk to someone in an elevator. "Hey, the weather sucks today, huh?" Do you think I've maintained through this thread, for instance, that such a phrase is wrong? Or that conversing playfully with someone you've actually had a conversation or have established some kind of preliminary relationship with beforehand?
Because if you really think so, I don't know what to tell you. You must have been reading a different thread with posts written by a different guy with a four letter "D" name, because I have always maintained, as one condition of her being reasonably discomforted by the situation, that he was a total stranger, and that it was compounded by the fact that he was a stranger that was actually in her proximity (at the bar) for some time before the elevator proposition.
In fact, I think I used that exact phrase or something like it somewhere in this thread, about having a "preliminary relationship" established before coldly propositioning someone.
Please pay attention and stop suggesting I have been arguing things I haven't been arguing.
Congratulations! You aren't necessarily in agreement with a large portion of singles! This is why this conversation is non-productive. Groups are operating on completely different perspectives of how social negotiation for sex should take place.
Yeah I don't understand that logic. If you are a grown-ass adult and someone makes a pass at you, and you react the way that "sara" does... you're not a grown-ass adult. You're immature as fuck.
Feral was right to ask her out once, and was right to back off when sara declined. Sara was right to decline him, but was wrong to act like a child about it.
Ah, no. It doesn't bother me that women travel in groups, or leave early. It bothers me that leaving early or travelling in groups is wisdom that women should need to "figure out". It doesn't bother me that it works, it bothers me that they might feel it's necessary.
I'm all for friendly conversation, but I'm also all for electing to speak to women in situations that don't make them feel uncomfortable. To me, "don't proposition women for sex in elevators" is good advice, because it made at least one woman uncomfortable, and the women in my life who I've discussed this with have told me that it would have also made them uncomfortable, and I personally want to avoid that.
Of course, Feral's method seems like a very easy way of accomplishing that.
Proud owner of the Veggie, Constellation and Cephalothorax badges
I have been reading your posts and when people call you out, you either go "i was trolled into saying that" or you try to move the goalposts.