Yeah, I’m surprised there aren’t more men freaking out about this argument. It’s blatantly misandrist.
Unca Cecil has a few words for you all.
No, clearly an invitation up to a girl’s apartment on a flimsy excuse + an explicit prohibition on sex = she wants to fool around a bit. Maybe she does want to have sex, but she doesn’t want it to be her idea.
I don’t know what you are missing here. You know that apartment = sexy time. Are you not aware that women often use “I don’t want to have sex” to establish a limit, and that this phrase doesn’t mean no hanky panky? Or that some women want to have sex but they don’t want it to be their idea?
This is how it looks to a guy:
She didn’t have me call a cab when:
(1) We finished eating/drinking
(2) The check came
(3) We paid and got our change/CC receipts
(4) The waiter told us they were closing
(5) The restaurant actually closed
(6) We walked out the door of the restaurant
(7) We got to her apartment building
(8) We got into her apartment
Ergo, she wants me to be in her apartment. To conclude otherwise would require him to think his date has the problem solving skills of a drug addled golden retriever.
This may be true if it wasn’t raining cats and dogs, and if she hadn’t clearly spelled out “no”. There’s being shy, and then there’s being clear. She was clear. But fine, try to get into the pants of a woman who clearly said “no” several times. What could possibly go wrong?
before he came up to her apartment to call a cab MOL was liking him. it could have gone somewhere real.
then he turned into Dickhead McGrabby
Tell that cool story to the jury, brah.
Ergo, someone in this thread is a thirsty ass bitch.
I don’t know, if this thread is in any way representative, I think a conviction would be a bit of a crapshoot.
This thread is depressing as hell.
Nah, it’d be a sure thing. It’s not like MOL was sporting leopard print panties which everyone knows are clear indicators of asking for it. We’ve been pretty clear about getting consent before sex for 30-40 years now. These guys and their “signals” are gambling on a felony.
This thread absolutely begs for this Louis CK bit from the weird fetishes thread.
Fuck that idiotic bullshit, seriously. From the OP:
That’s not an explicit prohibition on sex: that’s an explicit prohibition on funny business, i.e., “fooling around a bit.” Misreading it as talking about sex is wishful thinking of the sleaziest variety.
No, that’s how it looks to an asshole. THIS is how it looks to a guy:
- She didn’t call a cab earlier.
- But she’s inviting me up to the apartment.
- Woohoo!
- Oh, wait: she’s setting very clear boundaries and explaining why.
- Dangit!
- Oh, well. Respect boundaries, stay out of the rain, thank her for a wonderful evening, hugs goodbye, try for a third date.
It’s revolting that you’re trying to set yourself up as spokesman for guys like that. No, you’re not, and if you really see mixed signals in the OP, you suck at signal interpretation. Shit, I suck at signal interpretation, and I see nothing mixed in the OP.
I can’t figure out why treis, Living Well, and a couple others hate men so much that they’d advise other men to keep pushing for sex even when she says no. And I can’t figure out why PRR, Dallas, and a couple others hate themselves and other men so much they insist they can’t be trusted to respect the word “no”. I can’t figure out where all the shrill MRAs are who ought to be raising hell on the men who advocate behaving like predators. What the hell is happening here? (panacionne’s bewildering soapbox aside)
What’s the takeaway? Can’t be nice to men? Got to be prepared to pepper spray all men because they think with their dicks? Got to satisfy men’s sexual frustrations because prostitutes aren’t legal? Letting any man into your home is an open invitation to sex, therefore we can’t let men into our homes under any circumstances? What is the message here?
Right? How is this not obvious? I like how steps 5 and 6 to some people are 5) Fuck her boundaries. I’m going to paw at her, and 6) She can reject me all she wants. When she rebuffs my pawing I’m going to keep doing it.
Fucking clowns.
No, not any man but with a man with whom you had just been on a non-platonic date it is going to be received as a ‘go ahead’ to some asshole men. This is not debated, right? So the take away is to assume all men are this way until they show themselves to be otherwise.
So at what point does the following come into play: “So I’m not one to beat around the bush, I’m not one to mislead, and so I made it very clear to him that while I understand whenever a date invites you up for any reason (to meet her cat, to check out her art collection, to watch that movie she was telling you about), it’s a poorly veiled excuse to make with the funny business, but this was NOT the case. The case here is he’s been cool beans and I didn’t want to have him standing in the pouring rain with no umbrella waiting for a cab for 15 min. He says he understands fully and thanks me for being nice about it.”
Because I get why you’d think an invite would imply something else, but I am absolutely at a loss to figure out why you’d maintain that implication of sexytime in the face of what she says to him up there, unless the answer is “women lie about not wanting sex or at least fooling around if they invite you up to their apartment”.
I’m not trying to defend the guy nor guess what he might have considered a “green light” in light of those damning words by MOL. There are guys out there, as evidenced by this thread, who DO think the words are nothing but a flimsy pretext meant to save some face by the lady, or play hard to get, or whatever. The point is the guys exist. So be cognizant of that fact and behave accordingly.
Because its all about her being at fault. No matter what.
But, the fact that MOL said what she said acknowledges that guys like that exist. She acknowledges the “flimsy pretext” issue and shuts it down by saying, unequivocally, “this is not that situation”. So I think we are more than well aware of the fact that guys are out there who believe that an invite into the apartment means sexytime will be happening.
What I do NOT understand, is why they perpetuate that mentality, after being told unequivocally that will not happen. Evidently we are to believe that women aren’t to be believed when they say no, because that is all a part of the game, or something.
So we should behave as though all men lack self-control and will attempt to force themselves on us? Okay, but I bet you’re about to be stormed and attacked by the MRA brigade. Der Trihs? blindboyard? solosam/lonecashew? Steophan? Y’all cool with this, right?