# It will be difficult to stamp out unwanted sex advances, because they (sometimes) work **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 4, 2017, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567 "2017-12-04T19:40:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/41 "2017-12-05T03:42:10Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > Here’s an example of appropriate persistence: > > I had dated Bloke for a while, and been friends with him for years. We just weren’t right for each other, and I broke up with him. A few weeks later, he called, declared his undying love for me, and asked if there were any chance? I said, I’m sorry, no. He’s a dear friend, I care _about_ him, but I don’t care _for_ him. He accepted my answer, and didn’t make me feel in any way pursued, or treat me in any way other than friendly. > > A few months later, on my birthday, he sent a bouquet of flowers. Not red roses, not a roomful of dozens like makes them swoon in the movies, just a small, thoughtful bouquet that let me know the door was still open. I called and thanked him, in a friendly manner, and when I didn’t try to step through the door, he left it at that. > > If he was in town on business, we got together whenever we could fit it in, with never a hint of anything other than friendship. But every year, for twenty-odd years, that bouquet showed up on my birthday, just to let me know the door was open. And because regardless of whether I wanted him in the same way, he just liked knowing the flowers made me smile. Honestly, it made me wish I COULD want him, but I couldn’t even make myself do it, he just wasn’t right for me. > > Before he proposed to his now wife, he flew into town and we had dinner. He spent the better part of two hours telling me all about her, and how wonderful it all was, and I was overjoyed for them. Door closed. > > We are still friends, I think of him warmly, and we still keep up with each other on social media. We no longer get together “just us” because his wife wouldn’t like it, and I don’t blame her. > > And yes, from some guys, those flowers would have been creepy as hell. But he had never tried to push past a boundary I set. He prioritized my happiness, and would never had tried to “break me down” or “wear me out.” And throughout our friendship and short dating life, he had never once made me feel threatened in any way. He respected my ability to know my own feelings, and my right to decide for myself what I wanted. He made sure I felt safe with him,and would have been horrified if he’d done anything to make me feel pressured or threatened. > > If my feelings had ever changed, it would have been the romantic story of the century. LOL! His wife is a very lucky woman; he just wasn’t right _for me_. Bloke’s a good man. ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/42 "2017-12-05T04:15:51Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Bloke’s a good man. He really is. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/43 "2017-12-05T04:19:10Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I can’t speak for other dudes, but speaking as a guy, look, yeah, we’ve all probably made a pass or whatever you wanna call it. Women aren’t going to scream ‘rape’ if you made your move and it turned out to be unwanted. That’s not the point. Where women get freaked out is when it’s already been established that it’s unwanted and yet a guy tries to insist, over the woman’s objection (implicit or otherwise) that ‘she really wants it.’ And…seriously…keep the wang-dang-doodle concealed until such time as _she_ sees fit. Is it that difficult of a concept to understand? ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/44 "2017-12-05T05:09:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, and excatly when does it cross into Harrassment? > > Dude: “Hey Sharon, would you like to go out to lunch?” > Sharon “No thanks Bob, I brought my lunch.” > Bob; “Maybe some other time?” > Sharon “Maybe, sure”. > > So Bob asks again. > No dice. Same “not today” answer. > > And again. > > and again. > > Sharon never says “Bob, I never want to go out with you, stop asking”. > > Bob never gets creepy or impolite but keeps it casual and hopeful. > > So, which request crosses the line? The fourth. Really. Admittedly, it’s a kind of white shoes after labor day rule, but if a person says no, thank you three times, stop. It doesn’t matter if it’s a curt ‘no’ or an “Oh, I’d love to but …”, stop asking. If s/he wants to go out with you, s/he can ask the next time. Unless s/he suggests an alternative time, then it doesn’t count as a no. And unless it’s lunch **that day**. You can stop by some one’s cubicle to invite someone to join you for lunch every week for 20 years, because that’s not really a date. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/45 "2017-12-05T10:32:54Z")
> [@Jacquernagy](#): > > And…seriously…keep the wang-dang-doodle concealed until such time as _she_ sees fit. Is it that difficult of a concept to understand? Exactly. Misreading a sign and going in for a kiss and getting rejected - it’s textbook rejection. But to keep coming after it’s already clear that the feelings aren’t mutual…that’s predatory behavior. ---
**Author:** ![actualliberalnotoneofthose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e79b87/32.png) [@actualliberalnotoneofthose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/actualliberalnotoneofthose)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/46 "2017-12-05T11:38:27Z")
> [@Jacquernagy](#): > > And…seriously…keep the wang-dang-doodle concealed until such time as _she_ sees fit. Is it that difficult of a concept to understand? What if she takes it out, without securing firm verbal consent? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/47 "2017-12-05T11:45:32Z")
Where I diverge with the assessment made in the OP is that I don’t regard the continuation of this pattern to be inevitable, universal, or immutable. That female behavior is also a part of the overall pattern is true, and yes, they reinforce each other. Male behavior needs to change at least in conjunction with female behavior, if not first. Think about it. As long as males behave like this, females are going to be repulsed by it — who wouldn’t be? So they react by pulling away. It doesn’t have to be everyone changing universally. The environment as a whole changes if a significant portion of the people change their behavior. The ideal focus of change is among people who never wanted to behave in the prescribed / socially scripted way to begin with. The people for whom the sexually polarized patterns of behavior described in the OP are a very bad fit for their own personality and instincts and inclinations. Because it’s a bad fit, we tend to play our part poorly, and with resentment. You’re definitely better off if we aren’t making the attempt and instead select other means to the same end. Just raising awareness of our existence and, along with that, some awareness of how we do the courting and flirting thing, instills in people’s heads the alternative possibility. For those who might be drawn towards that path as a far more comfortable one to walk, that should be a great personal benefit. The rest of the world experiences a lessening of the overall polarization. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/48 "2017-12-05T14:14:44Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Where I diverge with the assessment made in the OP is that I don’t regard the continuation of this pattern to be inevitable, universal, or immutable. That female behavior is also a part of the overall pattern is true, and yes, they reinforce each other. Certainly on an individual level it’s not “inevitable, universal, or immutable”. Any number of posters to this thread have made the point that they have an unerring ability to detect what other people really think, and who knows if that might even have some truth to it in some of these cases? But on a societal level it seems fairly obvious that many people have issues with accurately deciphering other people even when those others are not doing their best to put on a false front, let alone when they are. The entire point of “playing hard to get” is to successfully disguise one’s true feelings and attitude - otherwise it would be completely pointless. (No doubt this technique is completely useless when applied to many posters here, but its existence in society suggests that it works on a lot of people.) My overall point is that it’s not just a matter of a simplistic “just say no” campaign, since the issue is tied up in much broader aspects of inter-gender relationships and attitudes, which are much harder to modify (even if people appreciate the connection to begin with). ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/49 "2017-12-05T15:04:35Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > The problem is that it’s increasingly becoming accepted that harassment is what the woman in question says it is, while at the same time being fluid and not necessarily harassment if coming from someone else. But how are we to know an approach is unwelcome until we try? It becomes a situation where men are expected to read women’s minds, and their careers and possibly even legal problems hang in the balance. Neither I nor most men I know have experienced the kinds of jeopardy you describe. Boundaries exists and they seem quite clear to me. I simply don’t buy the, “How was I to know?!” excuse. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Yes, they actually do what? I don’t understand what saying here. See above. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Not give or take but give _and_ take. There’s a big difference. And what it means is that men should be more aware of women’s concerns in this area and be sensitive to how their behavior is met, and women should be more forgiving of the occasional faux pas that a man might make toward her. Each needs to understand that no clear answer exists and that they need to cooperate with each other to maintain the most equitable balance in the workplace. I have yet to hear a case where a man was fired for asking a woman to lunch or dinner in a professionals setting. I have heard lots of cases where a man took liberties well beyond asking a woman out on a date. Perhaps you can enlighten me and show me these egregious overreactions by women against perfectly innocent men you say are going on. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Of course I read it, and it says exactly what I’m talking about regarding the current approach being harmful and limiting to women in the workplace; i.e., they begin to find themselves being excluded from business meetings and trips, or just not hired to begin with, in order to ensure that harassment problems don’t arise in the first place. This is the full context of what Ms. Sandburg said (bolding mine): > [@article](#): > > That said, she is also worried about workplace repercussions that could limit the opportunities women have in their careers. “I have already heard the rumblings of a backlash: ‘This is why you shouldn’t hire women,'” she wrote. **“Actually, this is why you should.”** > > “We need systemic, lasting changes that deter bad behavior and protect everyone,” she wrote, noting that in her book, Lean In, a majority of senior male managers told her they were afraid to be alone with a female colleague, over fear of sexual harassment accusations. “Doing right by women in the workplace does not just mean treating them with respect. It also means not isolating or ignoring them,” Sandberg wrote, encouraging men not to “just hire women,” but to “mentor, advise, and promote them,” too. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Contrary to what you seem to think, I’m not anti-woman at all. Why, because some of your closest relatives are women? Look, I don’t think you’re anti-women. But your views are somewhat of a throwback. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/50 "2017-12-05T17:36:48Z")
I can understand some perspectives that I do not share. I think there are males who fear that it is some kind of inevitable female nature that women will express disinterest in sex and expect and require men to chase them down, to make their case for why sex ought to take place, to elicit a romantic and/or erotic response from the women who otherwise would of course never have any such feelings because they’re all reactive that way; but that — at the same time — all these women are seeking a change to the original rules, whereby if a man makes the attempt to _do_ that chasing-down, to make his case for why sex with him is a good idea, ooh, then if it doesn’t work with the result that she isn’t into him (no romantic or erotic response having been thusly kindled), she can have him declared a perpetrator of sexual harassment, a sexist pig, a creepy male who has objectified her (etc etc). So they’re going around whimpering “We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t, it’s no fucking FAIR!!” I’m caricaturing them quite a bit here, because they kind of deserve it: they think of themselves as trapped in their situation, not wanting things to be this way but unable to get out of it by themselves — and yet they do not see women’s behavior, including feminist behavior, as being an attempt by women to get out of the situation _they_ feel trapped in; they don’t see that if both sexes feel trapped and both sexes would like to get out of the situation, they could work together on this, at least have a dialogue about what should change and how it would be if it did change, what different alternative expectations and rules we would have to play by. Nope, they make no effort to change the situation they say they feel trapped in, other than providing reactionary pressure to roll things back to a pre-feminist time. They don’t speak about how things could be otherwise. They express no optimism about how it could all be different. And when feminists do, they complain that all the feminists do is call men horrible and express hate and anger. I have the suspicion that (despite decades of feminism) men think women have it the way they want it, that women won’t change, that women wouldn’t listen if men explained what part of the trap we don’t like, and that therefore men just have to accept it the way it is. I _don’t_ understand _that_ part. WTF?!?? Complete lack of ability to walk the proverbial mile in someone else’s pumps?? Yeah, they’re angry (who wouldn’t be? aren’t YOU, about yours?) but they’re being honest about what they’re angry about, and they’ve been pretty optimistic about how things could be, in ways that benefit men, or would, if they transpired. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/51 "2017-12-05T21:13:44Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > As a male human, I can usually tell from body language whether someone is saying, No, but maybe some other time, or No, stop asking me. So, if I’m picking up the Really, No vibe, I would stop after one or two. > > Assuming Dude is missing that particular human skill, then I would say that the non-asshole way to proceed would be to ask two or three times, then leave it at, “Well, if you’re interested in getting away from the desk and grabbing a bite at lunch, just let me know!” When I was in high school in the dark ages it was well understood that asking a girl for a date more than twice when you got brushoffs was being a jerk. It isn’t all that hard. The problem with expecting a direct no from a woman in the example is that she might worry about the guy getting snotty and thus harming a professional relationship which depends on communication. Two nos without an offer of a raincheck or an “I’d love to, maybe next week” should be enough for any guy to get the message. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/52 "2017-12-05T21:24:52Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > When I was in high school in the dark ages it was well understood that asking a girl for a date more than twice when you got brushoffs was being a jerk. It isn’t all that hard. > The problem with expecting a direct no from a woman in the example is that she might worry about the guy getting snotty and thus harming a professional relationship which depends on communication. Two nos without an offer of a raincheck or an “I’d love to, maybe next week” should be enough for any guy to get the message. And yet, some continue to insists that women are just “playing hard to get”. Especially when they’ll sometimes appear to accept a similar offer from another guy. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/53 "2017-12-05T21:27:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > When I was in high school in the dark ages it was well understood that asking a girl for a date more than twice when you got brushoffs was being a jerk. It isn’t all that hard. > The problem with expecting a direct no from a woman in the example is that she might worry about the guy getting snotty and thus harming a professional relationship which depends on communication. Two nos without an offer of a raincheck or an “I’d love to, maybe next week” should be enough for any guy to get the message. I’d think so, too, but some questions we get on this board make it seem like some guys think women are an incomprehensible alien species out to trap them. It’s like they don’t know or work with any women. No one likes to talk to HR, so it usually has to be bad for a woman to make that trip. And, my guess is that no one is ever surprised when some guy at work finally gets the trip to HR or gets canned. For most of his co-workers, it’s probably, “what took so long.” ---
**Author:** ![HelenGawn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HelenGawn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelenGawn)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2017, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/54 "2017-12-06T00:36:16Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The entire point of “playing hard to get” is to successfully disguise one’s true feelings and attitude - otherwise it would be completely pointless. (No doubt this technique is completely useless when applied to many posters here, but its existence in society suggests that it works on a lot of people.) No it isn’t. The point is ambiguity. Case #!: She says no, then comes around a day or two later and says, “Where have you been? Grown shy or something?” (See [Spooky.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpo9KZYJ4sA)). Ambiguous. Case #2: Also no, and for the rest of the time you know her, she maintains a pleasant but non-flirtatious demeanor. Not ambiguous. Ask again, maybe for something more neutral - lunch instead of dinner, or coffee instead of lunch. If it’s still no, let it go.\* And really, guys, if a known coffee drinker won’t go to Starbuck’s with you, she’s not interested. Or she has good taste in coffee. \*Didn’t Johnnie Cochran say that? ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2017, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/55 "2017-12-06T00:58:32Z")
SO is the problem that some guys just suck at reading other people? Because really, that’s all this boils down to. If someone can’t read other people, he goes with the BS he sees in movies and hears in popular songs: dweeby guy wants hot woman, she turns him down, he keeps trying, she falls for him. Seriously, most women don’t play that “chase me if you want me” nonsense. There may be some who don’t return a phone call, and there’s a term for those women: rude. But they don’t turn down _dates_ unless a) they truly are busy or b) they don’t like you. Odds are they don’t dislike you because you’re not persistent, so asking again isn’t going to help. Case in point: guy in my English class junior year in college asked me out. For various reasons, I didn’t like him, so I said I was busy. He asked me again. Still busy. The third time, I grudgingly agreed to coffee. I figured it was like root canal: get it over with. But by that time, I already resented him. No way there was going to be a second date. If she says no twice, stop asking. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2017, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/56 "2017-12-06T02:42:11Z")
Here is the thing about harassers; they almost never just push an unwanted or inappropriate sexual advance on just one person or just one incident. It is a pattern of behavior develeoped specifically because it has worked for them in the past and because they haven’t been called out for it, or have been but have not been sufficiently penalized for it to correct their behavior. The only way anyone can claim that there is a “witch hunt” occurring is by ignoring that in every case thus far presented recently in the media, the accused has either acknowledged some degree of culpability (albeit often with an inadequate or evasive apology), has claimed the incident only to be an isolated behavior only to have other people press credible claims, or has denied the claims despite a clear pattern of behavior described consistently by multiple women over periods of years or decades. Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Matt Lauer do not get to claim “witch hunt” when it is apparent that multiple women have made consistent claims, often at peril to their careers and reputations. The conflation of “playing hard to get” with confusion from not explicitly and forceful rejecting repeated advances is disingeneous to say the least. That is like arguing that it was okay to T-bone car in front of you because it was in the intersection the traffic light turned green. Just because someone doesn’t explicitly tell you to stop making advances doesn’t mean that you should persist in making repeated advances ad infinim. And in the case of Filner, or generally any vocational or classroom environment, the person making the advance should be especially sensitive to the recipient wanting to defuse the situaiton without creating a larger problem or being penalized, particularly if there is a imbalance in power in favor of the proposer. This is why many workplaces frown on excessive fraternization between managers and subordinates and often prohibit someone in a management position involved in a romantic relationship to oversee their partner. Even when such relationships aren’t probibited and is even purportively consentual, men in positions of authority (and women, but this is predominately a male problem) should be circumspect about relationships with subordinates. Bill Clinton denying that he had sex with Monica Lewinski or casting disrepute on Gennifer Flowers, and using his office and authority to shield himself from credible accusations of sexual harassment by Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey, is as much of an abuse of authority (if not the extent of assault) as Weinstein or Kevin Spacey, particularly given his influence and ability to negatively impact his accusers’ future financial and vocational opportunities, which is an issue that many on the left of the political side of the spectrum have studiously tried to avoid discussing just as much as his Republican opponents have tried to rationalize it as a legitimate justification for impeachment proceedings. In short, if you don’t have enough social grace to intepret a polite blowoff, and don’t have the good sense to not proposition people in an inappropriate manner, you should probably be more circumspect about who you approach and how. Blaming everyone else for not making things clear and simple for you is what toddlers do in order to avoid being in blamed for misbehavior. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2017, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/57 "2017-12-06T15:30:45Z")
> [@HelenGawn](#): > > No it isn’t. The point is ambiguity. Sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not. But even ambiguity itself is also a form of deception, and if the target saw through it and appreciated what was being done, then there would be no ambiguity. So the effort to create ambiguity is relying on the notion that the target will not fully appreciate what’s going on. But as above, it’s a lot broader than that. Psychologists have put forth various theories on how and why playing hard to get works. See e.g. [here](https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/kzzxya/playing-hard-to-get-is-effective-according-to-psych-researchers), or [here](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201403/when-should-you-play-hard-get), et al. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2017, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/58 "2017-12-06T15:44:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not. > > But even ambiguity itself is also a form of deception, and if the target saw through it and appreciated what was being done, then there would be no ambiguity. So the effort to create ambiguity is relying on the notion that the target will not fully appreciate what’s going on. > > But as above, it’s a lot broader than that. Psychologists have put forth various theories on how and why playing hard to get works. See e.g. [here](https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/kzzxya/playing-hard-to-get-is-effective-according-to-psych-researchers), or [here](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201403/when-should-you-play-hard-get), et al. I submit that “playing hard to get” =/= disinterest or repeated rejection. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2017, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/59 "2017-12-06T15:47:49Z")
That’s obviously true. But it’s sometimes easy to confuse one for the other, especially if the target is not skilled at picking up social cues or is motivated to believe it’s not what it actually is, or if the player is not skilled at giving out social cues. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567/60 "2017-12-06T17:41:45Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s obviously true. > > But it’s sometimes easy to confuse one for the other, especially if the target is not skilled at picking up social cues or is motivated to believe it’s not what it actually is, or if the player is not skilled at giving out social cues. I remain confused about the point of this thread. If you’re in a work environment, it doesn’t matter whether you’re hearing no because she’s “playing hard to get” or because she really doesn’t want to go out. After a few asks, you have to stop in order to avoid a hostile work environment, especially if the response was “no”. So, “playing hard to get”, as much as that exists, should not be a concern in a work environment, since you have to back off anyway. If you’re not in a work environment, what negative effects do you think will happen if you persist, that wouldn’t have happened for time immemorial? You’ll either be accepted, rejected, mocked, etc., but that has always been true. You won’t get into any legal trouble if you’re hassling a friend, as long as you’re not stalking. So, can you clarify the point of this thread? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-will-be-difficult-to-stamp-out-unwanted-sex-advances-because-they-sometimes-work/803567.md?page=4)