There’s no such thing as a “strange man.” It was a regular dude. She let a regular dude in because she’s a person and he’s a person and it’s nice to treat a person like a person. Ever see the threads around here that your “strange men” start about the way women treat them in normal everyday contexts? This crazy bitch left me standing out in the rain!
For your personal safety, ladies, don’t let strange men into your home. But, like, I’m not strange. Let me in the house; it’s fucking raining, and we just had a really nice time hanging out. I told you about my job and my sister and everything. Why would you assume I’m some kind of predator?
You are wrong, misandrist, and too stupid to contribute. “I am inviting you up, but nothing is going to happen tonight, I just don’t want you to stand in teh rain while you wait for your cab” is NOT ambiguous in any way, shape, or form. The misandry comes in when you assume men are going to be so dumb as to consider that ambiguous.
I think you misread what I said. Or perhaps I didn’t write it too clearly. What I meant there was in comparing the examples of a woman avoiding the man who doesn’t listen to “no” vs. the large black man getting harassed by cops who have it out for him, if a woman eliminated the possibility of the man being in her home, no assault would occur, “period” (although I know that by no means eliminates the threat of assault to a woman altogether, just in this instance).
Let me be plain. I utterly disagree that a woman who explicitly tells someone that she has no interest in sex has to avoid inviting them up for coffee, conversation or to use a phone. The occassional man who acts like an ass is not worth rearranging your life for. That is no solution. That’s paranoia and a life of fear. We all take calculated risks in life. The only other option is locking the door and never leaving. Most guys are just fine and to think otherwise sells guys short.
And I wanted to denote that he was not an unfamiliar person. He was a normal guy who had already been vetted, like you or me after a date that goes pretty well. Which is why what he did is fucked up, and what she did was normal, and why (in my opinion) it should be super-important to you to be clear about that. She did something you and me ought to want her to do under the circumstances, not something we ought to be scolding her for. Do you want to get rained on?
I didn’t have a car until I was 26 years old, and only got one then because my new job required me to make trips out of town. It’s quite possible to lead a productive, fulfilling life without a motor vehicle. It’s certainly easier than never allowing anyone into your home unless you intend to have sex with them, which was the actual advice you offered. You’ve now changed that to “strange men” and “at night”, but that’s not what you said before.
A bit of a difference from what you actually said.
Here, again, is the post that I have been referring to:
This is the third time I’ve quoted these exact words back to you. They still say the same thing, and your attempts to claim otherwise aren’t fooling me. The word “night” does not appear there, or even “man”. You don’t even say this rule applies only to people the woman doesn’t know, but people she doesn’t know OR does not want to have sex with. I don’t want to have sex with my mother, my best friend, or my elderly landlady, yet I’ve invited all of them into my home. I guess I’m just lucky none of them took it the wrong way!
Oh yeah, and describing the same incident this way:
and this way:
within a half hour period doesn’t exactly help your credibility either. Do you seriously not understand that even if you change your story we can still go back and read what you originally wrote?
OK. Am I right or wrong here when I say that you believe that this is worth pointing out because the option she did choose communicated to the guy that his behavior was appropriate? In other words, you agree with handsomeharry, professor of sociology, about this “conflicting signals” business? It seems totally irrelevant to me what else she might have done, because what I’m saying is that what she did do was perfectly reasonable, and is the way I would like to be treated in the same situation. What you’re saying is that you don’t think what she did was reasonable? You think that if you yourself were on a date, and your date told you that she didn’t want any kind of romantic interlude, but that she had a nice time and wanted you to be off of the street while you waited for a cab, and then she behaved in a way that was consistent with that, you would think or do… what?
No, I don’t agree with handsome harry. I think MOL did a good, reasonable thing. All I’m saying is that we live in a bad, unreasonable world. I DO NOT think she communicated to the guy that his behavior was appropriate. Not in any way, shape or form. Let that be clear. If I myself were on a date and a similar situation arose, I might like to come inside to use the phone but I would definitely understand where she was coming from if I was never invited in.
The trouble with the helicopter dick gambit is you have to keep making the noise the whole time. whup whup whup whup
Ambivalid, I think the reason your position may be a little unclear here is that you started with “You should have known better.” Which is not, in general, the thing we say to people who have done good and reasonable things. It’s what we say to people who fucked up. I’m not trying to tell you you’re arguing something you’re not arguing, and I believe you that it’s a coincidence that you sound like you’re telling MeanOldLady she fucked up, same as somebody like treis is telling her she fucked up. It just seems like this bad old unreasonable world shrug of the shoulders kind of thing is weirdly passive toward the actual problem, and weirdly critical of something you’re saying isn’t the problem. As long you aren’t the type who assumes the default option is pull your shit out as soon as you walk across the threshold, isn’t it better for everyone to treat that type as the exception?
And, I mean, specifically, I don’t think she should have known better. I think telling the dude “I ain’t having it” covers her. I think that should be the rule. I think it actually is the rule. I don’t think I or my friends, as far as I can tell, would have struggled to grasp the score there. Which is where it gets confusing to me - if you also think that’s the rule, then what’s the problem?
Exactly. That guy was my friend. I wouldn’t treat him like a stray dog just because he is male. Not one of my friends would leave a buddy standing in the rain, and not one of my male friends would be stupid enough to ignore the word no and push themselves on a disinterested date.
Someone upthread pretty much nailed it. We get to choose between freedom and safety. Only, when we chose freedom we were supposed to choose safety, and when we choose safety we were supposed to choose freedom.
