Having been assaulted, the first reaction I had was to try and restore order and a sense of safety.
It's a LOT easier to figure out what to do in a fist fight.
I've only ever been beat up twice as a kid, and one of the times I couldn't do anything as I was knocked unconscious before I knew anything had happened. Now that I'm older I feel like I have more of a chance of controlling my emotional state should these encounters occur again.
I think about this because I am frequently the chauffeur for women who just want to go drink and have a good time, but are adamant that I don't leave them alone for a second. They voice their fears to me. One of them is so afraid she even had panic attacks when I accompanied her to the fair.
I feel the fear that I will be maimed or killed in an encounter they imagine will happen, but I also feel that always reacting with flight only continues this vicious cycle. Sometimes safety cannot be guaranteed and I want to be able to recognize when the point of no return has been crossed.
This is a stereotype, but I feel like women universally value their lives very much. It doesn't always work out well for them. One woman I know recounted how she was stalked by a homeless person who shamed her in a subway car until she gave her a lot of money. Where is the solution? I cannot demand women act any differently, so I must act differently for them. If that directs harm my way, I must prepare for it and accept it.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
edited October 2017
Here is something that happened to me last week:
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
We've been talking entirely too much about probability and not remotely enough about expectation, because we've been short-cutting the discussion for ease.
C(sexual assault) <<< 0, such that even if P(sexual assault) << 0.5, E(sexual assault) remains very large, whereas C(~sexual assault) is very small, so even if P(~sexual assault) is large, there is very little payoff to playing that side of the coin.
Or in more concrete terms, you are in all probability not God's gift to women, and even if you're not going to sexually assault her, that woman at the bar probably won't give a shit if you don't get to woo her, but she will definitely mind your ruining her night by harassing her (or worse).
Expected values do not diminish the associative fallacy problem of the original statement. It's an ever-expanding trap; there's any number of behaviours you can engage in that have low chances of ever backfiring on you but also are not actually significantly altering your chance of encountering the negative event (rape, sexual assault, dart-throwing, mugging) you're trying to avoid.
So despite your previous statements, it just comes down to you not believing that "doesn't take no for an answer" has a significant effect on how likely someone is to be a predator. And I disagree!
We've been talking entirely too much about probability and not remotely enough about expectation, because we've been short-cutting the discussion for ease.
C(sexual assault) <<< 0, such that even if P(sexual assault) << 0.5, E(sexual assault) remains very large, whereas C(~sexual assault) is very small, so even if P(~sexual assault) is large, there is very little payoff to playing that side of the coin.
Or in more concrete terms, you are in all probability not God's gift to women, and even if you're not going to sexually assault her, that woman at the bar probably won't give a shit if you don't get to woo her, but she will definitely mind your ruining her night by harassing her (or worse).
Expected values do not diminish the associative fallacy problem of the original statement. It's an ever-expanding trap; there's any number of behaviours you can engage in that have low chances of ever backfiring on you but also are not actually significantly altering your chance of encountering the negative event (rape, sexual assault, dart-throwing, mugging) you're trying to avoid.
How about the negative event of having to tell you to go away a second time? That's pretty strongly correlated with being asked a second time, right?
I don't know when you popped into this thread, but the discussion around rape originated about Frankie's assertion that women shouldn't be skeeved out by persistent men, because most men aren't rapists. People took on that particular argument, and Frankie responded in kind, resulting in this line of debate taking on a whole life of its own, but even if a woman isn't going to be raped, it still fucking sucks to have to tell men to piss off over and over and over again. It's still threatening and unpleasant as shit.
Oh, by the way, you never actually demonstrated that it was an associative fallacy. You just made a bland assertion that it must be, and that, I guess, all women's instincts and beliefs are wrong. Which means, I assume, that you have done extensive research into the behaviour of rapists, sexual assaulters, and sexual harassers, and can detail to us how women are wrong and what the real indicators they should be keying off of are? I assume you have data showing that most Hollywood executives invite actresses back to their hotel rooms alone, and that it's not just Harvey Weinstein and other sexual predators who did that, so women who feel sketched out by that sort of thing happening to them are just committing an association fallacy?
I don't think the pestering approach to bridging from light social encounter to intimate relationship is polite or indicative of a healthy respect for women but it's an attitude lots of reasonably intentioned normal people who definitely think rape is wrong have.
This is getting kinda weirdly aggressive for a normal discussion. Most people will admit to once upon a time being selfish or shitty at talking to members of the opposite sex. *
Edit: * or the same sex, I'm not sure but I bet intimacy is a hard awkward thing to achieve at some point for everyone.
Sure, but most people won't follow that up by rationalizing their behavior because they were just oh so lonely and then explain that they intend to raise their sons to do the exact same selfish, shitty things because it's a shitty world and that's the only way to get by.
In retrospect, it’s clear sharing personal info was a mistake. I’ve been fairly trusting of this forum, and some requests for personal info and history were answered in good faith. I thought it might help people see where I’m coming from, I didn’t quite expect the reddit-like response.
I don't think the pestering approach to bridging from light social encounter to intimate relationship is polite or indicative of a healthy respect for women but it's an attitude lots of reasonably intentioned normal people who definitely think rape is wrong have.
This is getting kinda weirdly aggressive for a normal discussion. Most people will admit to once upon a time being selfish or shitty at talking to members of the opposite sex. *
Edit: * or the same sex, I'm not sure but I bet intimacy is a hard awkward thing to achieve at some point for everyone.
Sure, but most people won't follow that up by rationalizing their behavior because they were just oh so lonely and then explain that they intend to raise their sons to do the exact same selfish, shitty things because it's a shitty world and that's the only way to get by.
In retrospect, it’s clear sharing personal info was a mistake. I’ve been fairly trusting of this forum, and some requests for personal info and history were answered in good faith. I thought it might help people see where I’m coming from, I didn’t quite expect the reddit-like response.
Maybe it was, but again, if you're gonna say the system sucks and use your sons as a line of argument, people are gonna call you on encouraging your sons to advance a system you admit is shitty.
I ate an engineer
+9
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Man walks up to a woman and says "Hey, noticed you were sitting alone. Want some company?" How many of these responses to a man initiating contact with a woman in a social setting mean "no"?
- "I'm having a rough day."
- "I really don't want to talk to anyone right now."
- "Men are always trying to chat me up here. Can't figure out why..."
- "Not really sold on company right now."
- "I mean I guess there are empty seats near me if you really have to"
- "I'm waiting on some friends"
All of the above.
Now can you think of any social cues, either inflection or body language, that would change these sentences from a no to a yes in your mind?
Nope, because the thing is, we socialize women in our society to not give hard nos.
Add a wink and a smile to all of those statements.
Now answer again.
And should I also add a dancing panda in a tutu as well? Because that's about as likely as a woman going, "I'm having a rough day," and then winking and smiling.
This is distressingly similar to those utterly ridiculous rape defenses, where because a woman briefly tapped her foot, that indicated that she wanted it, so everything from that point onwards was consented to. I mean yeah, she said no like a million times, but three years ago, she sent me a text with a winky face on it! How could I have known?!
Reading body language in a social setting to mean "continue talking to me" is distressingly similar to ridiculous rape defenses?
You really can't envision a scenario where a woman was having a bad day, went to a social setting alone, had a man come up to her and initiate conversation, then her response being "I'm having a rough day" with body language indicating that hes now making it better?
That's a complete straw man, because I was criticizing your "wink and smile" bullshit, by which you conjecture absurd counter-signals to nullify the very scenario you set up. I mean, why not have a giant billboard behind her too, announcing her true state of mind? It's an absurd game where you just continually tack on unrealistic-as-fuck cues to justify interpreting a situation in which said cues do not arise in the same manner.
It's particularly offensive, because this is the shit women have to put up with regularly. They shouldn't have to fucking LOCK DOWN every single part of their body language to fit an unrealistic imaginary standard to be taken at their word. Because today, it's a wink and a smile, tomorrow it's she didn't maintain eye contact long enough, the next day she tapped her foot on her seat, the day after that it's she was wearing a skirt which means that she's a promiscuous woman and that she's begging for it.
Why do YOU get to determine what cues women are using to indicate "soft" nos, and not women getting to control what YOU are interpreting as "soft" nos? This is patriarchal nonsense at its finest: men know what women really mean, and women should just accept it.
People have different behavioural standards! Different cultures use different cues! And different individuals do too! God forbid a woman with Tourette's ever go out, as apparently, you're all just going to be all over her, because she keeps winking every time she tells you to piss off.
How about this, maybe if she wants to say you're making her day better, she'll go, "You're making it better!" And if she isn't, 99% chance you're not, so don't imagine nonsense just to justify harassing her!
Are you trying to understand and have a discussion or just attack? It feels like you are just looking for attack points rather than discussing...
Seriously, though. Can you literally not think of a situation in which you might interpret a person's neutral response as a soft yes? Or interpret a person's soft no response as a neutral response?
Women aren't perfect at communicating and they can be just as awkward as men. Additionally, not all women communicate like you think they will: always saying exactly what they mean.
The point is that communication is varied and clouded especially when compounded by awkward first contact type situations.
So the question becomes, Do we only continue conversation with someone if they use a universal YES (excluding even soft yes's as those could be misinterpreted neutral responses)? Because thats what it seems like the greater thread is arguing for.
Honestly, between discussion and attack, it's mostly attack, because I don't want to have entirely fallacious discussions. For example, now you're talking about how I/we're saying that people have to say YES in order to have a conversation. Which is a real thing, affirmative consent for all social interactions, but isn't even fucking remotely implied by anything I wrote nor has been argued for in this thread, for at least quite some while as best as I can find it. You've turned an argument about, "No means no," to, "Okay, but what if...," to, "So you have to have a Yes?!"
And the really putridly ironic part of it is that this was exactly the slippery slope I anticipated was coming and that I was specifically trying to ward off already. So, no, I don't particularly want to have a discussion like this if it goes on in this vein. I know where that particular line of reasoning goes already, because it's sadly super-common, and it's a gross disgusting place, a place this thread has been living for 20 pages.
Here's what it comes down to: you are stupid. (Not uniquely so. As part of the human condition.) You are terrible at reading body language. You don't have a natural understanding of other people. You probably also suffer from a serious ignorance gap when it comes to the lives of people of the other gender. So stop making up bullshit excuses as to why that woman-you-don't-know's rejection of you isn't actually a real rejection, because the odds are really high that it was a real rejection and that you're completely misreading this person you don't know, especially because your doing so enables all the other men who are real scumbags to keep doing the same thing, with far worse consequences for the women.
This is a pretty goosey response to a genuine attempt to talk about how I think this issue isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be.
I mean I never attacked you or did anything remotely close of deserving of that post.
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
This is a very false equivalency. And a strawman.
No one here has ever argued that conversations occasionally go awry, or people are misinterpreted.
We're saying that when you initiate that conversation, and the person you dign to talk to says some or any form of no, you don't press further. You don't treat it as a misinterpretation. You don't act as if you know what's best for them (not that you're implying that, in this specific example).
Maybe a good build on yours would be if she had handed you your food, and this had happened:
"May I join you?"
"No, I'm watching a show here."
"Oh, well, I think I'm better entertainment than Netflix!"
She ignored you, and decided that she knew best for you. This is what we're discussing. Not how humans can sometimes be humans.
Anon the Felon on
+2
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
This is a very false equivalency. And a strawman.
No one here has ever argued that conversations occasionally go awry, or people are misinterpreted.
We're saying that when you initiate that conversation, and the person you dign to talk to says some or any form of no, you don't press further. You don't treat it as a misinterpretation. You don't act as if you know what's best for them (not that you're implying that, in this specific example).
Ok, and what if a man doesn't interpret it as a no, even though in her head she meant it as a soft no?
Edit: Also how is this a false equivalency or a strawman? I'm literally just using an example to show how communication is flawed. Which is what I've been talking about the past few pages...
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
This is a very false equivalency. And a strawman.
No one here has ever argued that conversations occasionally go awry, or people are misinterpreted.
We're saying that when you initiate that conversation, and the person you dign to talk to says some or any form of no, you don't press further. You don't treat it as a misinterpretation. You don't act as if you know what's best for them (not that you're implying that, in this specific example).
Ok, and what if a man doesn't interpret it as a no, even though in her head she meant it as a soft no?
Then he would be
Part.
Of.
The.
Problem.
+14
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
This is a very false equivalency. And a strawman.
No one here has ever argued that conversations occasionally go awry, or people are misinterpreted.
We're saying that when you initiate that conversation, and the person you dign to talk to says some or any form of no, you don't press further. You don't treat it as a misinterpretation. You don't act as if you know what's best for them (not that you're implying that, in this specific example).
Ok, and what if a man doesn't interpret it as a no, even though in her head she meant it as a soft no?
Then he would be
Part.
Of.
The.
Problem.
And I'm saying it's not his fault since he's genuinely doing the best he can.
Which I guess is the fundamental difference here and one of the reasons I'm peacing out of this convo.
I don't think the pestering approach to bridging from light social encounter to intimate relationship is polite or indicative of a healthy respect for women but it's an attitude lots of reasonably intentioned normal people who definitely think rape is wrong have.
This is getting kinda weirdly aggressive for a normal discussion. Most people will admit to once upon a time being selfish or shitty at talking to members of the opposite sex. *
Edit: * or the same sex, I'm not sure but I bet intimacy is a hard awkward thing to achieve at some point for everyone.
Sure, but most people won't follow that up by rationalizing their behavior because they were just oh so lonely and then explain that they intend to raise their sons to do the exact same selfish, shitty things because it's a shitty world and that's the only way to get by.
In retrospect, it’s clear sharing personal info was a mistake. I’ve been fairly trusting of this forum, and some requests for personal info and history were answered in good faith. I thought it might help people see where I’m coming from, I didn’t quite expect the reddit-like response.
Maybe it was, but again, if you're gonna say the system sucks and use your sons as a line of argument, people are gonna call you on encouraging your sons to advance a system you admit is shitty.
Is what it is. Life goes on, and it is at least intriguing to see how far people will go when they disagree with you. I’m trying to imagine the response I’d get if I attacked a poster with similar language or started pulling up and posting PMs from years ago. Seriously. How you can do that kind of shit while complaining about creepy behaviour is beyond me.
Like, if my real name was on here would someone call my job? Put child services on me? That’s about the level of confidence I have at the moment given the fun we’ve had so far.
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
This is a very false equivalency. And a strawman.
No one here has ever argued that conversations occasionally go awry, or people are misinterpreted.
We're saying that when you initiate that conversation, and the person you dign to talk to says some or any form of no, you don't press further. You don't treat it as a misinterpretation. You don't act as if you know what's best for them (not that you're implying that, in this specific example).
Ok, and what if a man doesn't interpret it as a no, even though in her head she meant it as a soft no?
Edit: Also how is this a false equivalency or a strawman? I'm literally just using an example to show how communication is flawed. Which is what I've been talking about the past few pages...
It's a false equivalency because you're comparing a conversation that is not about dating, nor one where a request to enter a conversation, happened; to a conversation where one party requests to enter a conversation with another.
The strawman is the intentional (for good or ill) misrepresentation of "no means no" as two human beings crossing wires while one of them was distracted.
As a jumping off point from Obi and Anon's statements, let's not anyone be fooled into thinking that somehow "accepting no means no" would make everyone perfectly clear on every conversation and social situation.
My view, at least, is that there will always be shades of grey, but that we can err on the side of caution. We're dealing with very general basics, and people are rarely easily cut and dry as a simple "hello, may we talk?" "Nay, sir." "Indeed, miss, I bid thee good day." sense. There may be a little smile, but is that nervousness while assessing a possible threat, or intended to turn an ambiguous statement somewhat more positive? Is a little playing with their hair indicative of receptive body language, or a nervous tick? Etc.
Nobody sensible is saying that 'unless they respond with "YES, ALSO BUY ME A DRINK AND THEN LATER RAVISH MY BODY", flee the room'. There's the unambiguous 'no means no'. There's slightly more ambiguous responses that it's not unreasonable to proceed with cautiously, to do so ideally armed with the knowledge that telling apart someone who is being coy or still on the fence versus someone who is silently fighting down a panic attack might not be easy to do, especially in a loud, probably dimly lit bar and after a round or five.
Few interpersonal connections happen under perfect conditions, we all make mistakes, it's not an egregious affront to the notion of daring to try to buy someone a drink or get a number to say 'please be aware of the possible extenuating circumstances, and show a little extra caution'. It's like arguing a physics issue where we require imagining perfectly frictionless perfect spheres or whatever; yes the world is imperfect and messy, but that means we just need to show a little extra attention.
As noted earlier in the thread, I'm 6'3", and have always prided myself on playing nicely with others. That's not a euphemism, I mean that sincerely, I know that I'm literally a foot taller and probably 100+ pounds heavier than the majority (probably the vast majority) of the city's population. I don't stay too close to women when walking down the street (other letting them get some distance, or passing them at a good pace), I try to give other people space and not corner them, or any number of things intentionally and reflexively at this point, and yet I have probably made some woman very uncomfortable, through no fault of my own.
And that, imo, is part of the disconnect here. It's not about me. It's not personal. It's not something I should just power over and they can deal. It may be highly irrational, tied to an experience of theirs or someone they knew, but I'm not owed an explanation.
Sometimes I get one anyway. As I also pointed out much earlier in the thread, I play the game of online dating (meat grinder for the soul that it is), and a lot of the time (hell, most of the time) I get no response to my message. And I'm not owed one, but sometimes I do, and I know from talking to female friends on apps and sites, and from reading articles, that even a timid and gentle rejection is often met with a blistering barrage of bullshit. But they say no, usually in a very respectful way, and my response isn't to say "but are you sure?", it's to say "Thank you for the response, good luck in your search!", and that's that.
Would their lives be better if I didn't take that first no? Even if I didn't go full raging asshole on them, as some are wont to do, should I press on? Am I missing out on all kinds of fucking and relationships because they said no and I took them at their word?
There are always going to be judgement calls, but we need to look at things generally, to not miss the forest for the trees.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
This is a very false equivalency. And a strawman.
No one here has ever argued that conversations occasionally go awry, or people are misinterpreted.
We're saying that when you initiate that conversation, and the person you dign to talk to says some or any form of no, you don't press further. You don't treat it as a misinterpretation. You don't act as if you know what's best for them (not that you're implying that, in this specific example).
Ok, and what if a man doesn't interpret it as a no, even though in her head she meant it as a soft no?
Then he would be
Part.
Of.
The.
Problem.
And I'm saying it's not his fault since he's genuinely doing the best he can.
Which I guess is the fundamental difference here and one of the reasons I'm peacing out of this convo.
If a person doesn’t know any better they can still be part of the problem. That’s not good but it is still solvable.
If a person is told they’re helping cause a problem and decide they don’t care, well, it’s a jerk move.
+5
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
So despite your previous statements, it just comes down to you not believing that "doesn't take no for an answer" has a significant effect on how likely someone is to be a predator. And I disagree!
"Despite my previous statements" I love these little barbs. Nothing I've said is contradictory.
So long as the pool of non-predators is significantly larger (which is well established to be the case wrt rape specifically, but even if we extend it to sexual assault is still probably the case), and with the practice of asking a second time being fairly well entrenched in dating practices (for better or worse, but it demonstrably is), it is the case that "asks a second time about the drink" does not have a significant effect on how likely someone is to be a predator.
So long as this is the case, the practice of treating those who do ask a second time as predators - while it may well do limited harm to women's expected dating outcomes* - is still an associative fallacy of limited usefulness. It is comparable to a number of other similar beliefs; for example, European women currently avoiding Middle-Eastern men on account of the high-profile rapes in the news over the past two years. In just the same way, such a criterion does little to harm those women employing it, just as it also does little to protect them.
(*somewhat contingent on the values you assign to 'a good night' - with or without sex - and 'finding a longterm partner', one doesn't need to consider oneself "god's gift to women" to think these are good outcomes)
edit: and also good night, I may or may not continue this tomorrow as it seems to have run its course judging by the newer responses.
Bethryn on
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
+1
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
This is a very false equivalency. And a strawman.
No one here has ever argued that conversations occasionally go awry, or people are misinterpreted.
We're saying that when you initiate that conversation, and the person you dign to talk to says some or any form of no, you don't press further. You don't treat it as a misinterpretation. You don't act as if you know what's best for them (not that you're implying that, in this specific
Maybe a good build on yours would be if she had handed you your food, and this had happened:
"May I join you?"
"No, I'm watching a show here."
"Oh, well, I think I'm better entertainment than Netflix!"
She ignored you, and decided that she new best for you. This is what we're discussing. Not how humans can sometimes be humans.
See I wouldn't see it as her ignoring me and deciding what's best for me. I'd see it as her making it clear she's into me and trying to be clever/witty to show her personality.
I don't see anything wrong with that interaction. If she persisted past a second very clear no, then ok I'm with you.
Man walks up to a woman and says "Hey, noticed you were sitting alone. Want some company?" How many of these responses to a man initiating contact with a woman in a social setting mean "no"?
- "I'm having a rough day."
- "I really don't want to talk to anyone right now."
- "Men are always trying to chat me up here. Can't figure out why..."
- "Not really sold on company right now."
- "I mean I guess there are empty seats near me if you really have to"
- "I'm waiting on some friends"
All of the above.
Now can you think of any social cues, either inflection or body language, that would change these sentences from a no to a yes in your mind?
Nope, because the thing is, we socialize women in our society to not give hard nos.
Add a wink and a smile to all of those statements.
Now answer again.
And should I also add a dancing panda in a tutu as well? Because that's about as likely as a woman going, "I'm having a rough day," and then winking and smiling.
This is distressingly similar to those utterly ridiculous rape defenses, where because a woman briefly tapped her foot, that indicated that she wanted it, so everything from that point onwards was consented to. I mean yeah, she said no like a million times, but three years ago, she sent me a text with a winky face on it! How could I have known?!
Reading body language in a social setting to mean "continue talking to me" is distressingly similar to ridiculous rape defenses?
You really can't envision a scenario where a woman was having a bad day, went to a social setting alone, had a man come up to her and initiate conversation, then her response being "I'm having a rough day" with body language indicating that hes now making it better?
That's a complete straw man, because I was criticizing your "wink and smile" bullshit, by which you conjecture absurd counter-signals to nullify the very scenario you set up. I mean, why not have a giant billboard behind her too, announcing her true state of mind? It's an absurd game where you just continually tack on unrealistic-as-fuck cues to justify interpreting a situation in which said cues do not arise in the same manner.
It's particularly offensive, because this is the shit women have to put up with regularly. They shouldn't have to fucking LOCK DOWN every single part of their body language to fit an unrealistic imaginary standard to be taken at their word. Because today, it's a wink and a smile, tomorrow it's she didn't maintain eye contact long enough, the next day she tapped her foot on her seat, the day after that it's she was wearing a skirt which means that she's a promiscuous woman and that she's begging for it.
Why do YOU get to determine what cues women are using to indicate "soft" nos, and not women getting to control what YOU are interpreting as "soft" nos? This is patriarchal nonsense at its finest: men know what women really mean, and women should just accept it.
People have different behavioural standards! Different cultures use different cues! And different individuals do too! God forbid a woman with Tourette's ever go out, as apparently, you're all just going to be all over her, because she keeps winking every time she tells you to piss off.
How about this, maybe if she wants to say you're making her day better, she'll go, "You're making it better!" And if she isn't, 99% chance you're not, so don't imagine nonsense just to justify harassing her!
Are you trying to understand and have a discussion or just attack? It feels like you are just looking for attack points rather than discussing...
Seriously, though. Can you literally not think of a situation in which you might interpret a person's neutral response as a soft yes? Or interpret a person's soft no response as a neutral response?
Women aren't perfect at communicating and they can be just as awkward as men. Additionally, not all women communicate like you think they will: always saying exactly what they mean.
The point is that communication is varied and clouded especially when compounded by awkward first contact type situations.
So the question becomes, Do we only continue conversation with someone if they use a universal YES (excluding even soft yes's as those could be misinterpreted neutral responses)? Because thats what it seems like the greater thread is arguing for.
Honestly, between discussion and attack, it's mostly attack, because I don't want to have entirely fallacious discussions. For example, now you're talking about how I/we're saying that people have to say YES in order to have a conversation. Which is a real thing, affirmative consent for all social interactions, but isn't even fucking remotely implied by anything I wrote nor has been argued for in this thread, for at least quite some while as best as I can find it. You've turned an argument about, "No means no," to, "Okay, but what if...," to, "So you have to have a Yes?!"
And the really putridly ironic part of it is that this was exactly the slippery slope I anticipated was coming and that I was specifically trying to ward off already. So, no, I don't particularly want to have a discussion like this if it goes on in this vein. I know where that particular line of reasoning goes already, because it's sadly super-common, and it's a gross disgusting place, a place this thread has been living for 20 pages.
Here's what it comes down to: you are stupid. (Not uniquely so. As part of the human condition.) You are terrible at reading body language. You don't have a natural understanding of other people. You probably also suffer from a serious ignorance gap when it comes to the lives of people of the other gender. So stop making up bullshit excuses as to why that woman-you-don't-know's rejection of you isn't actually a real rejection, because the odds are really high that it was a real rejection and that you're completely misreading this person you don't know, especially because your doing so enables all the other men who are real scumbags to keep doing the same thing, with far worse consequences for the women.
This is a pretty goosey response to a genuine attempt to talk about how I think this issue isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be.
I mean I never attacked you or did anything remotely close of deserving of that post.
This thread is 33 pages long. We've discussed the black-and-white-ness of it to death. That popped up initially on, like, page 4. The models you are using to frame your position are so naively oversimplistic that it feels gross to me to even have to regurgitate the words, like calling it "black and white" is already a grossly deceitful misrepresentation of the issue at hand. No, it isn't that black and white. I'm still right. We already accounted for that 20+ pages ago.
Saying stuff like, "it's not that black and white," and "what about soft nos," and "oh what, now we can't have any conversation unless people explicitly say yes," are the equivalent of racist dogwhistles. They're the things Rush Limbaugh says to rile up his unthinking radio audience. You might not know that you're using those dogwhistles, but you are, so yes, I find them gross and offensive, and no, I'm not particularly giving you the benefit of the doubt, because you've slippery-slope-d and straw-man-ed in every post you've made here so far.
It does not matter if sometimes a no secretly means something else. Unless you are a mindreader, you are not sufficiently capable of determining whether it does or not. As such, the only ethical response is to take a no at its face value. It does not matter if human interactions aren't this black and white; this remains the only ethical way to be.
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
This is a very false equivalency. And a strawman.
No one here has ever argued that conversations occasionally go awry, or people are misinterpreted.
We're saying that when you initiate that conversation, and the person you dign to talk to says some or any form of no, you don't press further. You don't treat it as a misinterpretation. You don't act as if you know what's best for them (not that you're implying that, in this specific
Maybe a good build on yours would be if she had handed you your food, and this had happened:
"May I join you?"
"No, I'm watching a show here."
"Oh, well, I think I'm better entertainment than Netflix!"
She ignored you, and decided that she new best for you. This is what we're discussing. Not how humans can sometimes be humans.
See I wouldn't see it as her ignoring me and deciding what's best for me. I'd see it as her making it clear she's into me and trying to be clever/witty to show her personality.
I don't see anything wrong with that interaction. If she persisted past a second very clear no, then ok I'm with you.
I challenge that this is because you're a man.
You already pointed out what happened when she mistook your simple use of the word "fine".
That's the world she lives in, where even simple statements can be a threat. In your world, the man's world, it's never very rarely a threat.
I understand your fear, Frankie, but I feel like people countering arguments you brought up for sympathy is a far cry from getting SWATted.
I hardly need sympathy, I love my life. I was trying to give a better picture of where I’d been to see if it would help people understand my points later. For all the disagreements, I post here because I find the majority to be well meaning. I don’t think I’ll see it in quite that light anymore. Which, ces’t la vie! This is why we post anonymously
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Women are socialized to make men feel good. We’re socialized to “let you down easy.” We’re not socialized to say a clear and direct “no.” We’re socialized to speak in hints and boost egos and let people save face. People who don’t respect the social contract (rapists, predators, assholes, pickup artists) are good at taking advantage of this.
“No” is something we have to learn. “No” is something we have to earn. In fact, I’d argue that the ability to just say “no” to something, without further comment, apology, explanation, guilt, or thinking about it is one of the great rites of passage in growing up, and when you start saying it and saying it regularly the world often pushes back. And calls you names.
Creepy guy near eL station: “Those groceries look heavy, can I carry them home for you?”
You: “No thanks.”
Creepy guy near eL station: “Well, you don’t have to be such a bitch about it. I was just OFFERING to HELP.”
25-year-old me would stew all the way home, worried about hurting the feelings of the creepy guy near the eL station and wondering if I should have done something differently. 37-year-old me knows that you don’t have to worry about hurting the feelings of sketchy people on a dark street who offer you “help” you don’t want and then call you names when you turn it down.
I don’t remember much of what we talked about, except that it was a pretty good time, and that I offered to pay (I never go on a date if I can’t or won’t pay my own way, and when I offer it’s always sincere), but he insisted on paying.
It was a freezing night and a long walk back to my place, and he had a long drive back to the part of the Illinois map that I know only as “Here there be dragons” (past Ikea) so I ended up inviting him in for a cup of hot tea. I knew my roommate was home and wasn’t planning to get up to any funny business, but wait a second, why am I even including that detail to justify it to you? I invited a nice person who I knew through a friend back into my living room after a nice date.
I made the tea and we sat on the couch and drank it. He took his array of expensive geeky electronics out of his pockets and put them on the coffee table when he sat down, and showed them off to me – “Oooh, a Palm Pilot!” We made some more small talk, and then my roommate came out of her room with her coat and said she was going to meet friends at a dance club and left. Shit.
As soon as she was out the door, my date said “Alone at last!” and launched his face at my face. What followed was about 5 minutes of the worst kissing in recorded history, as his giant slimy tongue worked its way down my throat, and then, when I recoiled, retreated slightly and began to systematically probe and “clean” my gumline. And then THE HANDS OF TERROR began their awful, awkward groping.
“Aaah, eek, that was unexpected,” I said when he surfaced for air.
“But nice!” He dove in for another round.
“Um, it’s getting late, and I have work tomorrow. Sorry to kick you out….”
“Who’s getting kicked out?”
British Dorkboy (6’6″ to my 5’4″) then grabbed my wrists and flipped me onto my back and held me down, where he began enthusiastically and passionately licking my neck and my ear and thrusting his groin against me. hanks to the height difference, this landed nowhere near my pelvis, which oddly made it MORE disturbing, like, why are you trying to fuck my knees?
I moved my wrists to try to break free (and test his hold), which he thought was hilarious, and gave him the idea that he should hold my wrists with one hand and tickle me with the other. See? Hilarious!
“That’s not funny, please stop it.”
“If I let you up, can we go in the other room?”
“That’s unlikely.”
“Why did you invite me in if you didn’t want something to happen?”
What was I supposed to say to that? “I thought my roommate would be home, and also, I didn’t know that you kiss like a head-sucking alien?” I squeaked out something in response, which made him say “You’re not really going to send me back out in the cold, are you?”
It was a long time ago, and I can’t remember everything I was thinking, but I remember both being very afraid of him but also matching his jokey, bantering tone and not actually FIGHTING fighting back, because as long as it was a joke maybe I had a chance of getting out of it without him hurting me. I pushed against his lock on my wrists again and tried to get out, and he (hilariously!) tickled me more, and I said “Please stop that, I don’t like it and am not enjoying myself” and he looked shocked and I was able to rock both of us and flip him onto the floor.
Before he could get up, I picked up his fancy electronics from the coffee table, and his coat and his shoes and his bag and his glasses (which he’d taken off, the better to suck my face with) and I threw them out my back door into a snowbank and when he went after them I shut and locked the door behind him and leaned my weight against the door while he banged on it and called me a “mad bitch” and demanded to be let in.
My point is, I was lucky. My point is, it can turn on a dime. One second it’s fun and playful and the next second the other person feels entitled to something because sex is a goal that has nothing to do with you as a person anymore, it’s something separate from you, and the other person doesn’t care if you’re having fun, and it’s like the mask slipped and you got a glimpse of the snarling, angry thing beneath. My point is, he could have hurt me really bad. My point is, I didn’t know what he would do until he did it. My point is that by throwing his crap out into the snow, I risked making him really violently angry instead of just sort of pushy, and maybe another woman (because I’m far from alone in having a story like this one) would have just gone along with it and fucked him, why not, just get it over with and get him out of here, rather than risk “real” violence. My point is, this is why Yes Means Yes and the idea of Enthusiastic Consent is so important, and it kills me that something so basic as “Both people need to be enjoying themselves all the time and it’s your job to check in and make sure that’s happening” needs to be explained. My point is that if you hear that someone has been raped, the question is “How are you, how do you want to handle things from here, and what can I do to help?” and not “Why you didn’t make better life choices?”
I’m newly single, and getting back into dating. I went on a date last night with a guy I met on OKC. We met up at a bar, and he seemed cute and smart, and as we talked it seemed like we had lots in common! But about twenty minutes in, it seemed clear he wanted to do the touching-kissing thing. I had just met this person, and I wanted to get comfortable around him before I let him put his hands on my body (even though he was cute and promising!). So I was sitting kinda sideways and he was sitting facing me, legs apart, physically accessible, etc.
He said something like, “You’re very guarded. I’m in the restaurant business and we read people quickly and I can tell that you’re very guarded.”
I felt weird, but there was this voice in my head saying, “You never let yourself just flirt and have fun!” So I sat facing him and let him touch my leg, and we kissed and had drinks, and the conversation was good! And we had a lot in common! And he was a good kisser!
Then he told me about a male friend of his in the military who got falsely accused of rape. Apparently the guy was going down on the woman, and she told him to stop, and he didn’t. She made a rape accusation and then later said she was lying.
So this guy (my date) said, my friend didn’t penetrate her—it was just oral sex! She didn’t physically resist! She made that accusation about three other people! She said she was lying!
I was thinking, 1. That was rape. 2. Wouldn’t be surprised if three other guys also didn’t listen when she said to stop, because that isn’t uncommon. 3. Women retract these accusations under pressure all the time. Warning lights are going off in my head. But I didn’t want to get into a fight about rape with a stranger. So I redirected the conversation.
Then after a while he said “I would really like to kiss you in a place other than here.” I took this as “I am ready for you to invite me to your place now.” I was caught off guard. So I said, “I don’t think I’m ready to sleep with you yet.”
So he said saying, 1. I just want to make out! I never said anything about having sex! 2. We should do this soon because the attraction is here now and if we wait it will fizzle out. 3. Are you worried about being a slut? I feel pressured and uncomfortable. He asks what’s wrong. I say, 1. You told me about how you think things that are rape are not rape. 2. Now you are pressuring me to take you home with me.
He was immediately horrified. He started saying “Calm down! Relax! You shouldn’t be so anxious!” I felt more and more uncomfortable. Finally we parted ways. I went home and sobbed. I have no idea why. I think I missed how easy it was between me and my ex, and now it’s like, ahhh, weird dating is my new reality!! Plus I just felt sooo uncomfortable.
My questions are, 1. Is it weird that I really don’t like being touched or kissed within 20 minutes of meeting someone? I Is that what’s expected these days? It happens to me a lot. I think everyone is reading Neil Strauss and think they have to “kino escalate” immediately.
2. Is there a script I can use when someone tries to touch me before I’m ready? One that is friendly?
3. I’m looking for my next meaningful relationship, ideally, but I wouldn’t be against having a fling. But I feel my idea of “casual sex” and most guys’ is different. Mine = we go out! We flirt! We go to art galleries and museums! We have sex sometimes, once we’re ready! But not very often / we date other people. Theirs = I expect sex immediately when we meet, and thereafter whenever I text you even if it’s 2AM, I expect you to come over and service my needs.
Does anyone have experience expressing what their idea of casual sex is and guiding the other person’s expectations toward that, provided casual sex is something they want too? I feel like what happens is I run into this “We must have sex right now!!” expectation and then I flee.
And finally, 5. Should I have calmed down? Was I overreacting about this guy’s creepy rape story? Intellectually I don’t think so, but there is a loud voice in my head saying “You ruin everything by overreacting all the time!!”
Thanks for your thoughts!
Awkward Dater
Dear Awkward Dater,
I’m publishing your letter partly because it is like a freaking short course on how a creepy, boundary-pushing dude operates. You are not the one doing it wrong here!
Let’s review his (mis)steps:
1) “You’re very guarded.” He wants something from you (for you to be unguarded), so he typecasts you in order to get you to prove that you are not what he thinks. Pick-up artists and their ilk call this a “neg,” Gavin de Becker* calls it typecasting, i.e. “You must be one of those proud women who can’t let anyone help you” = You might let me carry your groceries to your building to prove that you are not “stuck up”, even though you don’t want me near you at all.
2) He floated a story about what he thinks is a false rape accusation as a trial balloon to see how you react to such. The answer he wanted was “Whoa, I would never accuse my rapist like that woman accused her rapist because I am a Cool, Chill Girl.” When his balloon sank like the turgid load of crap it was, he tried to talk you out of your reaction. First, has “calm down” ever worked to make anyone calm down in the history of ever? Second, rapists absolutely test the social waters to see how a potential victim and/or his/her social group are likely to respond. Did he have no cute pet stories? Has he never had a job? Has he seen zero movies and read zero books? Has he never heard music? Did he not have a childhood or a place where he grew up? Did you not meet somewhere on the time-space continuum where there were other people to watch and speculate about? There are infinite possible conversational topics that don’t involve “lying liars who lie about being raped” that he could have raised with you.
3) He tells you a rape-y story and then tries to get an invite back to your place (or get you to come to his), and when you correctly identify his sexy intentions and tell him that you are not ready for that, he tries to gaslight you into the idea that you misinterpreted what he wanted. Maybe he would have been fine with just making out or playing Dungeons and Dragons and eating pancakes. Maybe he’s not actually a rapist. But why oh why is he acting like one, and why oh why would he want you to have sex with him when you are feeling on edge and unsafe with him? “The attraction might fizzle out if we don’t act on it now” = COOL STORY, BUT I’LL RISK IT, BRO.
4) I have massive side-eye for the “you’re too anxious” comment. Say you had a raging anxiety disorder that was interfering with your goal to meet new people and date them, and he knew about it. It would be extremely not okay for him to use that as an insult when you wouldn’t sleep with him! If you know someone is feeling really anxious about something you’re doing, you stop doing the thing and ask them what would make them feel okay. Him throwing this out there is classic deflection, like, “Pay no attention to the creepy things that I am doing! Instead, let’s focus on something you are insecure about so you will leave feeling bad about yourself and second-guessing yourself!” Prediction: If you had ended up dating him for any length of time you’d be faking your own death 6 months from now to get away from him.
Of course you felt off-balance. Dude was trying to push all your buttons to get you off balance and get you to go against your own instincts and desires. If you’d kept hanging out with him you’d feel even more off-balance by now.
In answered to your numbered questions, 1) You’re not weird for not wanting to jump right into touching. 2) If someone jumps the gun with you, a friendly, “I’m open to this eventually” script is “I’m not very touchy-feely, especially with people I don’t know well. I’m really psyched to be on this date with you, but I’ll be way more relaxed if I can be the one to touch you first.” A dude hearing that might feel a bit rebuffed and rejected, but if you back it up by being friendly and relaxed in your manner going forward, he’ll relax too. Someone who tries to talk you out of this is telling you that they are bad with consent. Someone who sulks and pouts and makes a big production about how they aren’t touching you is both bad with consent and really unsexy. so it will be good to find that out early.
Plenty of people are meeting on Tinder & Grindr or whatnot and boning down on a first date. More power to ’em. But despite whatever boring thinkpiece on “hook-up culture” is paying some poor sod’s rent this week, plenty of people are not doing any of that. There is no “what is done,” there is only “what you want to do and are comfortable doing.” Someone who is a good match for you as a boyfriend or as a casual sex partner will move at your speed and want you to be comfortable every step of the way.
3) I think you can absolutely make it clear that you want to get to know someone for a bit before having even the most casual sex with them. Make it clear that early dates are clothes-on affairs for you. “If you can beat me at Scrabble three times in a row I’ll consider it.” “Sounds hot, but let’s get tacos and hang out for a bit.” “I’m theoretically cool with friends-with-benefits, but I need to feel like we’re actually be friends. That takes a little time for me to figure out.” Again, people who don’t get that you need to build up rapport, comfort, and trust before you fuck aren’t the right partners for you.
4) There was no 4. I will use it for scripts for saying “I really like you, and I’d like to wait before having sex.” “That’s an awesome offer, but I really like you, and I don’t want to have sex right away until I know you better.” “I really like everything I know about you so far. If you feel the same, can we wait on the whole sex thing?” “Let’s kiss but keep all pants on for now.” There is nothing sexier than being invited wholeheartedly to bed by someone you know is on the same page as you. If you aren’t a casual sex person, then don’t apologize for it or pretend differently.
5) YOU DID THE RIGHT THING BY BAILING. You were not overreacting. Even if he’s not actually a rapist, he had “Come on, just the tip!” and/or “I know we just met and all but condoms just aren’t comfortable for me” or “It slipped!” written all over him. Had you gone home with him, you would have spent the entire time you messed around with him on edge as you waited for him to do something sketchy.
Your instincts and boundaries are in solid working order. You correctly sensed that this dude was trying to manipulate you, and you kept sight of what you actually wanted and what made you feel safe and comfortable. Please don’t beat yourself up for feeling bad afterward (he was bad news and he tried to get into your head as well as your pants), and please save your awesomeness for a not-sketchy dude.
Sex and pancakes,
Captain Awkward
I guess what I'm saying is everyone should read Captain Awkward if they're confused why enthusiastic consent is important and a thing.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+8
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
I don't think the pestering approach to bridging from light social encounter to intimate relationship is polite or indicative of a healthy respect for women but it's an attitude lots of reasonably intentioned normal people who definitely think rape is wrong have.
This is getting kinda weirdly aggressive for a normal discussion. Most people will admit to once upon a time being selfish or shitty at talking to members of the opposite sex. *
Edit: * or the same sex, I'm not sure but I bet intimacy is a hard awkward thing to achieve at some point for everyone.
Sure, but most people won't follow that up by rationalizing their behavior because they were just oh so lonely and then explain that they intend to raise their sons to do the exact same selfish, shitty things because it's a shitty world and that's the only way to get by.
In retrospect, it’s clear sharing personal info was a mistake. I’ve been fairly trusting of this forum, and some requests for personal info and history were answered in good faith. I thought it might help people see where I’m coming from, I didn’t quite expect the reddit-like response.
It did help people see where you're coming from. That we're drawing conclusions about you that you don't like is no justification for thinking sharing wasn't productive to the topic. You wanted to discuss things, so we discussed things. I feel that we've talked things out far enough that anything further isn't going to help. We started with you not respecting others' boundaries and refusing to listen when people tell you things you need to hear. In the middle we took a while and established without a doubt that that's exactly what was happening. Your responses to Cambiata today in particular made it pretty clear to me that your boundary issues and lack of propriety are still the same. In the first 25ish pages, I and others explained in painstaking detail exactly what was wrong with your thought processes, why certain fears of yours were unfounded, how you weren't in a position to know what was going on in others' heads, how statistics and threat evaluation work, etc, and you didn't give an inch. You made it clear that you still don't listen to others when you don't want to no matter how many good reasons you're given, how compelling the arguments are, how many real world experiences and statistics are provided, or how much math was used. Seems to me that we're exactly where we started.
It's been stimulating, Frankie, but there's no solution here.
I don't think the pestering approach to bridging from light social encounter to intimate relationship is polite or indicative of a healthy respect for women but it's an attitude lots of reasonably intentioned normal people who definitely think rape is wrong have.
This is getting kinda weirdly aggressive for a normal discussion. Most people will admit to once upon a time being selfish or shitty at talking to members of the opposite sex. *
Edit: * or the same sex, I'm not sure but I bet intimacy is a hard awkward thing to achieve at some point for everyone.
Sure, but most people won't follow that up by rationalizing their behavior because they were just oh so lonely and then explain that they intend to raise their sons to do the exact same selfish, shitty things because it's a shitty world and that's the only way to get by.
In retrospect, it’s clear sharing personal info was a mistake. I’ve been fairly trusting of this forum, and some requests for personal info and history were answered in good faith. I thought it might help people see where I’m coming from, I didn’t quite expect the reddit-like response.
It did help people see where you're coming from. That we're drawing conclusions about you that you don't like is no justification for thinking sharing wasn't productive to the topic. You wanted to discuss things, so we discussed things. I feel that we've talked things out far enough that anything further isn't going to help. We started with you not respecting others' boundaries and refusing to listen when people tell you things you need to hear. In the middle we took a while and established without a doubt that that's exactly what was happening. Your responses to Cambiata today in particular made it pretty clear to me that your boundary issues and lack of propriety are still the same. In the first 25ish pages, I and others explained in painstaking detail exactly what was wrong with your thought processes, why certain fears of yours were unfounded, how you weren't in a position to know what was going on in others' heads, how statistics and threat evaluation work, etc, and you didn't give an inch. You made it clear that you still don't listen to others when you don't want to no matter how many good reasons you're given, how compelling the arguments are, how many real world experiences and statistics are provided, or how much math was used. Seems to me that we're exactly where we started.
It's been stimulating, Frankie, but there's no solution here.
Indeed, I suppose there is not. Was a good time, peace out.
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
This is a very false equivalency. And a strawman.
No one here has ever argued that conversations occasionally go awry, or people are misinterpreted.
We're saying that when you initiate that conversation, and the person you dign to talk to says some or any form of no, you don't press further. You don't treat it as a misinterpretation. You don't act as if you know what's best for them (not that you're implying that, in this specific example).
Ok, and what if a man doesn't interpret it as a no, even though in her head she meant it as a soft no?
Then he would be
Part.
Of.
The.
Problem.
And I'm saying it's not his fault since he's genuinely doing the best he can.
Which I guess is the fundamental difference here and one of the reasons I'm peacing out of this convo.
If a person doesn’t know any better they can still be part of the problem. That’s not good but it is still solvable.
If a person is told they’re helping cause a problem and decide they don’t care, well, it’s a jerk move.
I'm saying its not a matter of them knowing any better. It a matter of them understanding communication differently.
I don't think all men should be required or expected to understand and communicate at whatever definition this thread expects of them.
There should be more understanding from women that men are just trying to get their personality out there and sometimes that takes more than a single interaction. And men should be more understanding and err more on the side of leaving women alone if it does sound like a no.
This thread so far has been very: no matter what, if a woman feels a man has persisted too much then it's the man's fault!
So despite your previous statements, it just comes down to you not believing that "doesn't take no for an answer" has a significant effect on how likely someone is to be a predator. And I disagree!
"Despite my previous statements" I love these little barbs. Nothing I've said is contradictory.
So long as the pool of non-predators is significantly larger (which is well established to be the case wrt rape specifically, but even if we extend it to sexual assault is still probably the case), and with the practice of asking a second time being fairly well entrenched in dating practices (for better or worse, but it demonstrably is), it is the case that "asks a second time about the drink" does not have a significant effect on how likely someone is to be a predator.
So long as this is the case, the practice of treating those who do ask a second time as predators - while it may well do limited harm to women's expected dating outcomes* - is still an associative fallacy of limited usefulness. It is comparable to a number of other similar beliefs; for example, European women currently avoiding Middle-Eastern men on account of the high-profile rapes in the news over the past two years. In just the same way, such a criterion does little to harm those women employing it, just as it also does little to protect them.
(*somewhat contingent on the values you assign to 'a good night' - with or without sex - and 'finding a longterm partner', one doesn't need to consider oneself "god's gift to women" to think these are good outcomes)
edit: and also good night, I may or may not continue this tomorrow as it seems to have run its course judging by the newer responses.
Your math only works if you assume that the proportion of people who persist past clear boundaries is very high (questionable), and you assume that isn't highly correlated to propensity to commit assault (questionable). Even then, it's still just pedantic, because in that situation it is still extremely effective as a filter... it just involves filtering a lot of people rather than some, as "does respect boundaries" would still significantly impact the odds (positively). And having more not-predators also respect boundaries improves the filter!
I have to chime in real quick about something that was brought up several pages back, that kind of got lost in the weeds between the back and forth that has dominated the discussion.
It was brought up that no should always mean "NO" when in the company of strangers, which I agree with. Unfortunately, it was then stated that "No, really means maybe" is okay with close friends and sometimes it's part of playing "hard to get." I take umbrage at this statement, no should always mean "NO!" Doesn't matter if it's a stranger or your childhood friend of some 20+ years. It's pretty shit to insist that no can sometimes mean maybe. Do not do this because you are undermining a tool that you may need or that someone else may need in the future people misread body language all the time and you do not want to muddy the waters when this happens by making it hard to gauge what no actually means. Hell, we've had a few statistics thrown in that show that even if a women thinks she knows a guy, sometimes it turns out that guy wasn't as they seemed. It's also pretty shitty to do to guys that are trying to be decent. If you have interest, then just state it. If you like playing the game of hard to get, you can do that without undermining the meaning of no. Like the word maybe since that's what you mean or use some other term that makes it clear there is interest, provided the right criteria is met and it would be a term that isn't no.
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
This is a very false equivalency. And a strawman.
No one here has ever argued that conversations occasionally go awry, or people are misinterpreted.
We're saying that when you initiate that conversation, and the person you dign to talk to says some or any form of no, you don't press further. You don't treat it as a misinterpretation. You don't act as if you know what's best for them (not that you're implying that, in this specific example).
Ok, and what if a man doesn't interpret it as a no, even though in her head she meant it as a soft no?
Then he would be
Part.
Of.
The.
Problem.
And I'm saying it's not his fault since he's genuinely doing the best he can.
Which I guess is the fundamental difference here and one of the reasons I'm peacing out of this convo.
If a person doesn’t know any better they can still be part of the problem. That’s not good but it is still solvable.
If a person is told they’re helping cause a problem and decide they don’t care, well, it’s a jerk move.
I'm saying its not a matter of them knowing any better. It a matter of them understanding communication differently.
I don't think all men should be required or expected to understand and communicate at whatever definition this thread expects of them.
There should be more understanding from women that men are just trying to get their personality out there and sometimes that takes more than a single interaction. And men should be more understanding and err more on the side of leaving women alone if it does sound like a no.
This thread so far has been very: no matter what, if a woman feels a man has persisted too much then it's the man's fault!
Literally by doing something too much it is too much.
I understand that not all men get this. I didn’t get it for a long time. But once it’s explained to a person they should respect others.
I don't think all men should be required or expected to understand and communicate at whatever definition this thread expects of them.
There should be more understanding from women that men are just trying to get their personality out there and sometimes that takes more than a single interaction. And men should be more understanding and err more on the side of leaving women alone if it does sound like a no.
This thread so far has been very: no matter what, if a woman feels a man has persisted too much then it's the man's fault!
This isn't nearly as difficult as you make it seem. Take someone at their word. That's it. Done.
And believe me, women understand men are trying to get their personality out there. If it takes more than a single interaction, tough. Find another woman to flaunt your personality at.
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
This is a very false equivalency. And a strawman.
No one here has ever argued that conversations occasionally go awry, or people are misinterpreted.
We're saying that when you initiate that conversation, and the person you dign to talk to says some or any form of no, you don't press further. You don't treat it as a misinterpretation. You don't act as if you know what's best for them (not that you're implying that, in this specific example).
Ok, and what if a man doesn't interpret it as a no, even though in her head she meant it as a soft no?
Then he would be
Part.
Of.
The.
Problem.
And I'm saying it's not his fault since he's genuinely doing the best he can.
Which I guess is the fundamental difference here and one of the reasons I'm peacing out of this convo.
If a person doesn’t know any better they can still be part of the problem. That’s not good but it is still solvable.
If a person is told they’re helping cause a problem and decide they don’t care, well, it’s a jerk move.
I'm saying its not a matter of them knowing any better. It a matter of them understanding communication differently.
I don't think all men should be required or expected to understand and communicate at whatever definition this thread expects of them.
There should be more understanding from women that men are just trying to get their personality out there and sometimes that takes more than a single interaction. And men should be more understanding and err more on the side of leaving women alone if it does sound like a no.
This thread so far has been very: no matter what, if a woman feels a man has persisted too much then it's the man's fault!
The only definition any of us have insisted upon is this one:
When she says "no", you let that be that and leave her alone. Be that when you ask her to join in a drink, or up to your apartment.
I also disagree with your assertion that women need to understand men are "just trying their best". But I think I get what you mean: that we all need to just cool it, and try a little harder with each other.
I understand your fear, Frankie, but I feel like people countering arguments you brought up for sympathy is a far cry from getting SWATted.
I hardly need sympathy, I love my life. I was trying to give a better picture of where I’d been to see if it would help people understand my points later. For all the disagreements, I post here because I find the majority to be well meaning. I don’t think I’ll see it in quite that light anymore. Which, ces’t la vie! This is why we post anonymously
Frankie, I honestly don't believe you weren't going for sympathy. You posted about the crippling depression you were afraid men faced and used that, the potential of your sons facing that, and your own suicidal thoughts as part of why you believed people in this thread didn't care about men.
You are also a salesperson and claim to be good at it, which means you should understand rhetoric and why those arguments were clearly written to evoke sympathy. I don't see any reason to indulge the idea those were tangents borne from the ether absent your reason for posting in this thread.
Since we're sharing anecdotes here, here's one of mine:
Once upon a time, I was working late with a female coworker that I'd describe as casual acquaintances, in terms of knowledge level.
We were having what was effectively a long planning meeting. Neither of us had eaten, so I suggested we go get some food while we did our planning.
She effectively no-response-d my suggestion, changing the topic immediately to something else. Actually, two or three other things in a row, as I recall it.
Now that wasn't even a no. And I certainly could have pressed again with that same question, and excused my persistence by saying that she didn't respond and maybe I didn't hear her. But I chose not to, because I know full well that there was a possibility that she interpreted my suggestion as an attempt at courtship, or perhaps that she was just uncomfortable with the idea in some other way, or whatever. So I didn't. And we kept working. And I was hungry and I didn't have dinner until midnight.
I'm still here. Life went on. Our working relationship remains intact and professional. I'm extremely optimistic that I'm not going to be one of "those creepy guy" stories for her in the future, and that I didn't make her feel uncomfortable or harassed, nor contributed to the already pretty toxic sexism in our field. Because even from my perspective, as opposed to hers, any of those possible negative outcomes, no matter how unlikely they might be, are not worth risking in exchange for my being hungry for a few hours. (I also could have just grabbed a snack.)
This is what people are talking about when they say, "No means no." Not that human interactions are simple and black and white and that it's super-obvious what everybody wants and how to give it to everybody, but when you step back, and you take everybody's perspectives and everybody's feelings into account, it turns out that, a lot of the time, there's a course of action that's more respectful and ethical, and there's one that's more selfish, so choose the former and not the latter.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I understand your fear, Frankie, but I feel like people countering arguments you brought up for sympathy is a far cry from getting SWATted.
I hardly need sympathy, I love my life. I was trying to give a better picture of where I’d been to see if it would help people understand my points later. For all the disagreements, I post here because I find the majority to be well meaning. I don’t think I’ll see it in quite that light anymore. Which, ces’t la vie! This is why we post anonymously
Frankie, I honestly don't believe you weren't going for sympathy. You posted about the crippling depression you were afraid men faced and used that, the potential of your sons facing that, and your own suicidal thoughts as part of why you believed people in this thread didn't care about men.
You are also a salesperson and claim to be good at it, which means you should understand rhetoric and why those arguments were clearly written to evoke sympathy. I don't see any reason to indulge the idea those were tangents borne from the ether absent your reason for posting in this thread.
I’d hoped it would give some people a glimpse into what it can be like and how bad it can be. It’s difficult to see the flippancy with which people address male concerns in these matters. My efforts to get anyone to recognize how serious this can be ultimately failed. You are, of course, free to believe what you’d like, I no longer expect anything I say to be taken in good faith.
As a professional, however, I feel I need to correct that sympathy has anything to do with sales. It tends to make you look needy, and sales need to be built on a foundation of trust. I literally tried this one time when I first started out and the lady told me, “I’d care if you were family,” and she had a point!
I understand your fear, Frankie, but I feel like people countering arguments you brought up for sympathy is a far cry from getting SWATted.
I hardly need sympathy, I love my life. I was trying to give a better picture of where I’d been to see if it would help people understand my points later. For all the disagreements, I post here because I find the majority to be well meaning. I don’t think I’ll see it in quite that light anymore. Which, ces’t la vie! This is why we post anonymously
Frankie, I honestly don't believe you weren't going for sympathy. You posted about the crippling depression you were afraid men faced and used that, the potential of your sons facing that, and your own suicidal thoughts as part of why you believed people in this thread didn't care about men.
You are also a salesperson and claim to be good at it, which means you should understand rhetoric and why those arguments were clearly written to evoke sympathy. I don't see any reason to indulge the idea those were tangents borne from the ether absent your reason for posting in this thread.
I’d hoped it would give some people a glimpse into what it can be like and how bad it can be. It’s difficult to see the flippancy with which people address male concerns in these matters. My efforts to get anyone to recognize how serious this can be ultimately failed. You are, of course, free to believe what you’d like, I no longer expect anything I say to be taken in good faith.
Well heck, then. Change the subject or something
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think the implication is: "Fuck this place, we can do this work over a dinner table, let's go get some food." Which can totally be construed as: "Let's go get dinner" thinly veiled as work.
Then the high road was taken, to not press the issue. Once the seed was planted, our man Hippo had very little hope in ordering food being not viewed as "dinner together".
Stop making me look less noble than my story already doesn't really much at all. I suffered, okay?!
I could have ordered some food or just grabbed a snack; it really wasn't like I was dooming myself to six hours of hunger. The analogy to be had here, of course, might be that there are other ways to meet women other than just persisting through their soft no-s at bars, like through online dating! It's not really a sacrifice at all.
I think the implication is: "Fuck this place, we can do this work over a dinner table, let's go get some food." Which can totally be construed as: "Let's go get dinner" thinly veiled as work.
Then the high road was taken, to not press the issue. Once the seed was planted, our man Hippo had very little hope in ordering food being not viewed as "dinner together".
Oh ok. I would have totally ordered a big meal and scarfed it down in the most unromantic way possible.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
I've only ever been beat up twice as a kid, and one of the times I couldn't do anything as I was knocked unconscious before I knew anything had happened. Now that I'm older I feel like I have more of a chance of controlling my emotional state should these encounters occur again.
I think about this because I am frequently the chauffeur for women who just want to go drink and have a good time, but are adamant that I don't leave them alone for a second. They voice their fears to me. One of them is so afraid she even had panic attacks when I accompanied her to the fair.
I feel the fear that I will be maimed or killed in an encounter they imagine will happen, but I also feel that always reacting with flight only continues this vicious cycle. Sometimes safety cannot be guaranteed and I want to be able to recognize when the point of no return has been crossed.
This is a stereotype, but I feel like women universally value their lives very much. It doesn't always work out well for them. One woman I know recounted how she was stalked by a homeless person who shamed her in a subway car until she gave her a lot of money. Where is the solution? I cannot demand women act any differently, so I must act differently for them. If that directs harm my way, I must prepare for it and accept it.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I regularly go to this Zaxbys near my work for lunch. Like at least once a week. They have all been super cool to me, with one cashier getting manager approval to comp my meal one time when my card got declined.
Before I continue and for reference, I'm 36 years old, balding, and not really out of shape but also not really in shape. Definitely a dad bod situation going on. I'm married with two daughters. Definitely not someone one of these 16-18 year old cashiers are gonna flirt with and vice versa.
So I order at Zaxbys and sit down. I wait. And wait and wait. I don't notice that I'm waiting all that long because I'm watching Netflix on my phone with buds in my ear, but up comes the server.
She seems a but confused: "Hey, is this your food?"
"Yeah, it sure is, awesome!"
"I'm so sorry it took so long," and some mumbled excuses are uttered as I start to turn down my show.
I gesture it's not a big deal, "No worries, you're fine."
She awkwardly says something I don't fully hear as I've yet to get my headphones out of my ear.
I clear my ears and respond, "Excuse me?"
She looks even more awkward, "Uh, You too..."
Me, not fully understanding what was being said, "Ok, thank you," and then pop in my ear phones again and get to working on my food.
While eating I replay the convo in my head and immediately get embarrassed. Did she think I was saying she was "fine" as in attractive?! She totally did and then responded in kind thinking she had to be nice and ohmygod.
Is it my fault she misinterpreted my response? Nah. Is it her fault? Nope. Just good ol communication problems due to two different people interacting.
Now to act like that doesn't happen in initial conversations between two strangers compounded by awkwardness from both sides due to landmine filled social structure is crazy.
Men are going to interpret soft nos as neutral responses and persist. Women are going to communicate soft no's and neutral responses that will be interpreted as soft and hard yes's, respectively, by men with different communication backgrounds. Does that make the light persistence of those men indicative that they are potential racists? No.
So despite your previous statements, it just comes down to you not believing that "doesn't take no for an answer" has a significant effect on how likely someone is to be a predator. And I disagree!
How about the negative event of having to tell you to go away a second time? That's pretty strongly correlated with being asked a second time, right?
I don't know when you popped into this thread, but the discussion around rape originated about Frankie's assertion that women shouldn't be skeeved out by persistent men, because most men aren't rapists. People took on that particular argument, and Frankie responded in kind, resulting in this line of debate taking on a whole life of its own, but even if a woman isn't going to be raped, it still fucking sucks to have to tell men to piss off over and over and over again. It's still threatening and unpleasant as shit.
Oh, by the way, you never actually demonstrated that it was an associative fallacy. You just made a bland assertion that it must be, and that, I guess, all women's instincts and beliefs are wrong. Which means, I assume, that you have done extensive research into the behaviour of rapists, sexual assaulters, and sexual harassers, and can detail to us how women are wrong and what the real indicators they should be keying off of are? I assume you have data showing that most Hollywood executives invite actresses back to their hotel rooms alone, and that it's not just Harvey Weinstein and other sexual predators who did that, so women who feel sketched out by that sort of thing happening to them are just committing an association fallacy?
In retrospect, it’s clear sharing personal info was a mistake. I’ve been fairly trusting of this forum, and some requests for personal info and history were answered in good faith. I thought it might help people see where I’m coming from, I didn’t quite expect the reddit-like response.
Maybe it was, but again, if you're gonna say the system sucks and use your sons as a line of argument, people are gonna call you on encouraging your sons to advance a system you admit is shitty.
I mean I never attacked you or did anything remotely close of deserving of that post.
This is a very false equivalency. And a strawman.
No one here has ever argued that conversations occasionally go awry, or people are misinterpreted.
We're saying that when you initiate that conversation, and the person you dign to talk to says some or any form of no, you don't press further. You don't treat it as a misinterpretation. You don't act as if you know what's best for them (not that you're implying that, in this specific example).
Maybe a good build on yours would be if she had handed you your food, and this had happened:
"May I join you?"
"No, I'm watching a show here."
"Oh, well, I think I'm better entertainment than Netflix!"
She ignored you, and decided that she knew best for you. This is what we're discussing. Not how humans can sometimes be humans.
Ok, and what if a man doesn't interpret it as a no, even though in her head she meant it as a soft no?
Edit: Also how is this a false equivalency or a strawman? I'm literally just using an example to show how communication is flawed. Which is what I've been talking about the past few pages...
Then he would be
Part.
Of.
The.
Problem.
And I'm saying it's not his fault since he's genuinely doing the best he can.
Which I guess is the fundamental difference here and one of the reasons I'm peacing out of this convo.
Is what it is. Life goes on, and it is at least intriguing to see how far people will go when they disagree with you. I’m trying to imagine the response I’d get if I attacked a poster with similar language or started pulling up and posting PMs from years ago. Seriously. How you can do that kind of shit while complaining about creepy behaviour is beyond me.
Like, if my real name was on here would someone call my job? Put child services on me? That’s about the level of confidence I have at the moment given the fun we’ve had so far.
It's a false equivalency because you're comparing a conversation that is not about dating, nor one where a request to enter a conversation, happened; to a conversation where one party requests to enter a conversation with another.
The strawman is the intentional (for good or ill) misrepresentation of "no means no" as two human beings crossing wires while one of them was distracted.
My view, at least, is that there will always be shades of grey, but that we can err on the side of caution. We're dealing with very general basics, and people are rarely easily cut and dry as a simple "hello, may we talk?" "Nay, sir." "Indeed, miss, I bid thee good day." sense. There may be a little smile, but is that nervousness while assessing a possible threat, or intended to turn an ambiguous statement somewhat more positive? Is a little playing with their hair indicative of receptive body language, or a nervous tick? Etc.
Nobody sensible is saying that 'unless they respond with "YES, ALSO BUY ME A DRINK AND THEN LATER RAVISH MY BODY", flee the room'. There's the unambiguous 'no means no'. There's slightly more ambiguous responses that it's not unreasonable to proceed with cautiously, to do so ideally armed with the knowledge that telling apart someone who is being coy or still on the fence versus someone who is silently fighting down a panic attack might not be easy to do, especially in a loud, probably dimly lit bar and after a round or five.
Few interpersonal connections happen under perfect conditions, we all make mistakes, it's not an egregious affront to the notion of daring to try to buy someone a drink or get a number to say 'please be aware of the possible extenuating circumstances, and show a little extra caution'. It's like arguing a physics issue where we require imagining perfectly frictionless perfect spheres or whatever; yes the world is imperfect and messy, but that means we just need to show a little extra attention.
As noted earlier in the thread, I'm 6'3", and have always prided myself on playing nicely with others. That's not a euphemism, I mean that sincerely, I know that I'm literally a foot taller and probably 100+ pounds heavier than the majority (probably the vast majority) of the city's population. I don't stay too close to women when walking down the street (other letting them get some distance, or passing them at a good pace), I try to give other people space and not corner them, or any number of things intentionally and reflexively at this point, and yet I have probably made some woman very uncomfortable, through no fault of my own.
And that, imo, is part of the disconnect here. It's not about me. It's not personal. It's not something I should just power over and they can deal. It may be highly irrational, tied to an experience of theirs or someone they knew, but I'm not owed an explanation.
Sometimes I get one anyway. As I also pointed out much earlier in the thread, I play the game of online dating (meat grinder for the soul that it is), and a lot of the time (hell, most of the time) I get no response to my message. And I'm not owed one, but sometimes I do, and I know from talking to female friends on apps and sites, and from reading articles, that even a timid and gentle rejection is often met with a blistering barrage of bullshit. But they say no, usually in a very respectful way, and my response isn't to say "but are you sure?", it's to say "Thank you for the response, good luck in your search!", and that's that.
Would their lives be better if I didn't take that first no? Even if I didn't go full raging asshole on them, as some are wont to do, should I press on? Am I missing out on all kinds of fucking and relationships because they said no and I took them at their word?
There are always going to be judgement calls, but we need to look at things generally, to not miss the forest for the trees.
If a person doesn’t know any better they can still be part of the problem. That’s not good but it is still solvable.
If a person is told they’re helping cause a problem and decide they don’t care, well, it’s a jerk move.
So long as the pool of non-predators is significantly larger (which is well established to be the case wrt rape specifically, but even if we extend it to sexual assault is still probably the case), and with the practice of asking a second time being fairly well entrenched in dating practices (for better or worse, but it demonstrably is), it is the case that "asks a second time about the drink" does not have a significant effect on how likely someone is to be a predator.
So long as this is the case, the practice of treating those who do ask a second time as predators - while it may well do limited harm to women's expected dating outcomes* - is still an associative fallacy of limited usefulness. It is comparable to a number of other similar beliefs; for example, European women currently avoiding Middle-Eastern men on account of the high-profile rapes in the news over the past two years. In just the same way, such a criterion does little to harm those women employing it, just as it also does little to protect them.
(*somewhat contingent on the values you assign to 'a good night' - with or without sex - and 'finding a longterm partner', one doesn't need to consider oneself "god's gift to women" to think these are good outcomes)
edit: and also good night, I may or may not continue this tomorrow as it seems to have run its course judging by the newer responses.
See I wouldn't see it as her ignoring me and deciding what's best for me. I'd see it as her making it clear she's into me and trying to be clever/witty to show her personality.
I don't see anything wrong with that interaction. If she persisted past a second very clear no, then ok I'm with you.
This thread is 33 pages long. We've discussed the black-and-white-ness of it to death. That popped up initially on, like, page 4. The models you are using to frame your position are so naively oversimplistic that it feels gross to me to even have to regurgitate the words, like calling it "black and white" is already a grossly deceitful misrepresentation of the issue at hand. No, it isn't that black and white. I'm still right. We already accounted for that 20+ pages ago.
Saying stuff like, "it's not that black and white," and "what about soft nos," and "oh what, now we can't have any conversation unless people explicitly say yes," are the equivalent of racist dogwhistles. They're the things Rush Limbaugh says to rile up his unthinking radio audience. You might not know that you're using those dogwhistles, but you are, so yes, I find them gross and offensive, and no, I'm not particularly giving you the benefit of the doubt, because you've slippery-slope-d and straw-man-ed in every post you've made here so far.
It does not matter if sometimes a no secretly means something else. Unless you are a mindreader, you are not sufficiently capable of determining whether it does or not. As such, the only ethical response is to take a no at its face value. It does not matter if human interactions aren't this black and white; this remains the only ethical way to be.
I challenge that this is because you're a man.
You already pointed out what happened when she mistook your simple use of the word "fine".
That's the world she lives in, where even simple statements can be a threat. In your world, the man's world, it's never very rarely a threat.
I hardly need sympathy, I love my life. I was trying to give a better picture of where I’d been to see if it would help people understand my points later. For all the disagreements, I post here because I find the majority to be well meaning. I don’t think I’ll see it in quite that light anymore. Which, ces’t la vie! This is why we post anonymously
Trigger warning:
https://captainawkward.com/2011/02/21/rape-awkward/
Did I overreact when my date told me a story about rape and then wanted to get me alone?
I guess what I'm saying is everyone should read Captain Awkward if they're confused why enthusiastic consent is important and a thing.
It did help people see where you're coming from. That we're drawing conclusions about you that you don't like is no justification for thinking sharing wasn't productive to the topic. You wanted to discuss things, so we discussed things. I feel that we've talked things out far enough that anything further isn't going to help. We started with you not respecting others' boundaries and refusing to listen when people tell you things you need to hear. In the middle we took a while and established without a doubt that that's exactly what was happening. Your responses to Cambiata today in particular made it pretty clear to me that your boundary issues and lack of propriety are still the same. In the first 25ish pages, I and others explained in painstaking detail exactly what was wrong with your thought processes, why certain fears of yours were unfounded, how you weren't in a position to know what was going on in others' heads, how statistics and threat evaluation work, etc, and you didn't give an inch. You made it clear that you still don't listen to others when you don't want to no matter how many good reasons you're given, how compelling the arguments are, how many real world experiences and statistics are provided, or how much math was used. Seems to me that we're exactly where we started.
It's been stimulating, Frankie, but there's no solution here.
Indeed, I suppose there is not. Was a good time, peace out.
I'm saying its not a matter of them knowing any better. It a matter of them understanding communication differently.
I don't think all men should be required or expected to understand and communicate at whatever definition this thread expects of them.
There should be more understanding from women that men are just trying to get their personality out there and sometimes that takes more than a single interaction. And men should be more understanding and err more on the side of leaving women alone if it does sound like a no.
This thread so far has been very: no matter what, if a woman feels a man has persisted too much then it's the man's fault!
Your math only works if you assume that the proportion of people who persist past clear boundaries is very high (questionable), and you assume that isn't highly correlated to propensity to commit assault (questionable). Even then, it's still just pedantic, because in that situation it is still extremely effective as a filter... it just involves filtering a lot of people rather than some, as "does respect boundaries" would still significantly impact the odds (positively). And having more not-predators also respect boundaries improves the filter!
It was brought up that no should always mean "NO" when in the company of strangers, which I agree with. Unfortunately, it was then stated that "No, really means maybe" is okay with close friends and sometimes it's part of playing "hard to get." I take umbrage at this statement, no should always mean "NO!" Doesn't matter if it's a stranger or your childhood friend of some 20+ years. It's pretty shit to insist that no can sometimes mean maybe. Do not do this because you are undermining a tool that you may need or that someone else may need in the future people misread body language all the time and you do not want to muddy the waters when this happens by making it hard to gauge what no actually means. Hell, we've had a few statistics thrown in that show that even if a women thinks she knows a guy, sometimes it turns out that guy wasn't as they seemed. It's also pretty shitty to do to guys that are trying to be decent. If you have interest, then just state it. If you like playing the game of hard to get, you can do that without undermining the meaning of no. Like the word maybe since that's what you mean or use some other term that makes it clear there is interest, provided the right criteria is met and it would be a term that isn't no.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Literally by doing something too much it is too much.
I understand that not all men get this. I didn’t get it for a long time. But once it’s explained to a person they should respect others.
This isn't nearly as difficult as you make it seem. Take someone at their word. That's it. Done.
And believe me, women understand men are trying to get their personality out there. If it takes more than a single interaction, tough. Find another woman to flaunt your personality at.
The only definition any of us have insisted upon is this one:
When she says "no", you let that be that and leave her alone. Be that when you ask her to join in a drink, or up to your apartment.
I also disagree with your assertion that women need to understand men are "just trying their best". But I think I get what you mean: that we all need to just cool it, and try a little harder with each other.
Frankie, I honestly don't believe you weren't going for sympathy. You posted about the crippling depression you were afraid men faced and used that, the potential of your sons facing that, and your own suicidal thoughts as part of why you believed people in this thread didn't care about men.
You are also a salesperson and claim to be good at it, which means you should understand rhetoric and why those arguments were clearly written to evoke sympathy. I don't see any reason to indulge the idea those were tangents borne from the ether absent your reason for posting in this thread.
Once upon a time, I was working late with a female coworker that I'd describe as casual acquaintances, in terms of knowledge level.
We were having what was effectively a long planning meeting. Neither of us had eaten, so I suggested we go get some food while we did our planning.
She effectively no-response-d my suggestion, changing the topic immediately to something else. Actually, two or three other things in a row, as I recall it.
Now that wasn't even a no. And I certainly could have pressed again with that same question, and excused my persistence by saying that she didn't respond and maybe I didn't hear her. But I chose not to, because I know full well that there was a possibility that she interpreted my suggestion as an attempt at courtship, or perhaps that she was just uncomfortable with the idea in some other way, or whatever. So I didn't. And we kept working. And I was hungry and I didn't have dinner until midnight.
I'm still here. Life went on. Our working relationship remains intact and professional. I'm extremely optimistic that I'm not going to be one of "those creepy guy" stories for her in the future, and that I didn't make her feel uncomfortable or harassed, nor contributed to the already pretty toxic sexism in our field. Because even from my perspective, as opposed to hers, any of those possible negative outcomes, no matter how unlikely they might be, are not worth risking in exchange for my being hungry for a few hours. (I also could have just grabbed a snack.)
This is what people are talking about when they say, "No means no." Not that human interactions are simple and black and white and that it's super-obvious what everybody wants and how to give it to everybody, but when you step back, and you take everybody's perspectives and everybody's feelings into account, it turns out that, a lot of the time, there's a course of action that's more respectful and ethical, and there's one that's more selfish, so choose the former and not the latter.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I’d hoped it would give some people a glimpse into what it can be like and how bad it can be. It’s difficult to see the flippancy with which people address male concerns in these matters. My efforts to get anyone to recognize how serious this can be ultimately failed. You are, of course, free to believe what you’d like, I no longer expect anything I say to be taken in good faith.
As a professional, however, I feel I need to correct that sympathy has anything to do with sales. It tends to make you look needy, and sales need to be built on a foundation of trust. I literally tried this one time when I first started out and the lady told me, “I’d care if you were family,” and she had a point!
Well heck, then. Change the subject or something
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think the implication is: "Fuck this place, we can do this work over a dinner table, let's go get some food." Which can totally be construed as: "Let's go get dinner" thinly veiled as work.
Then the high road was taken, to not press the issue. Once the seed was planted, our man Hippo had very little hope in ordering food being not viewed as "dinner together".
Stop making me look less noble than my story already doesn't really much at all. I suffered, okay?!
I could have ordered some food or just grabbed a snack; it really wasn't like I was dooming myself to six hours of hunger. The analogy to be had here, of course, might be that there are other ways to meet women other than just persisting through their soft no-s at bars, like through online dating! It's not really a sacrifice at all.
Oh ok. I would have totally ordered a big meal and scarfed it down in the most unromantic way possible.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.