Yeah, because men on the other hand react exactly the same when the woman who hits on them is like Roseanne in looks and personality as when she’s more like Jennifer Lawrence :dubious:
No, it’s not. There was a recent sociological study that showed that despite this being common wisdom, it’s not true. The men in the study weren’t much worse than reading interest than women - they simply didn’t care that the women weren’t interested.
I didn’t see that - can you find a link for us, maybe? Either way, thanks.
I see you’re starting to take this to a personal level. I don’t recommend that.
I mean, I myself have all sorts of useful suggestions about things that you can do, too. But I’m refraining, in favor of a discussion of ideas in the abstract. I suggest that you follow that example, and restrain your urge to make it personal.
I assume that, in keeping with your attitude here, you never express opinions about male behavior. But if so, you’re quite an outlier. I, along with about 99.999999% of the population, take a different approach. To each his or her own.
That’s incorrect.
I anticipated this point and addressed it in the OP, final paragraph.
No one has to debate anything. I thought it was a point worth making and about which opinions might vary. If you don’t think so, feel free to skip, as with any thread you don’t find worth discussing.
Apologies, I thought the joke was obvious, but I guess I’ll be more clear next time.
Do you want me to report this for a move to IMHO?
ISTM, when multiple people reach a conclusion that you’ve stopped arguing in good faith, perhaps the problem lies with you. YMMV.
Those are not mutually exclusive.
Because they seem to think that women see men as interchangeable units. Any guy will do. Which says something about how these men view women.
It is inevitable that some people who take door #3 will find themselves fired. And some, you are right, will end up happily married. I guess its up to the individual in question whether it is worth the risk of being walked out the door, because if you continue to pursue a woman, and she complains, and has evidence (like people witnessing your constant asks), you will find yourself looking for a new job.
Personally, unless you don’t have an attachment to being employed in your field - or in your small town - because people will talk, door #3 isn’t a smart option. Yes, people will still risk everything for the small chance this is true love - but I’ll go back to my original question - why the FUCK is someone who plays hard to get - and is going to drive you batshit crazy with similar passive aggressive nonsense if you manage to get her out, worth risking your job over? Why would anyone who has the potential to care about you let you risk your job like that? Anyone stupid enough to use door #3 probably isn’t someone you want working heavy equipment or dealing with customers.
I think this is an identification problem. Men–good men–hear these stories about men groping women, exposing themselves to women, stalking women, and they imagine themselves as the man in the story. They can’t imagine themselves as the woman, because our culture basically forbids that–we take it as a given that boys can’t/won’t/shouldn’t even read books with female male characters. Now, they can’t really imagine what would motivate sexually predatory men, because they aren’t sexually predatory. So the only way to make the story work–to be able to identify with the main character–is to recast the whole thing into star-crossed lovers or a bumbling awkward boy overcome with love or an evolutionary psychology just-so story.
I believe you may have misunderstood what I was saying. Sorry if I was a bit opaque, but see what I was responding to - it’s a discussion about what’s happening in my exchanges with certain posters in this thread.
In that context, “Option #3” referred to posters who hear someone making a comment about a societal issue in saying “regardless of whether or not it’s proper to do X, it’s inevitable that many people will do it anyway”, and carrying on as if that person had said “it’s proper behavior to do X”.
At no point in this thread have I advocated or justified any particular course of action.
What are you saying then?
I’ll grant you that you don’t condone behavior X. But in your very next breath you seem to claim, ‘Hell, sometimes it works! So what’s to be done?’
(P.S.: I’d give you a third option but you won’t like it any better than last time.)
When I worked construction, the rule for the guys was simple: If you don’t want a man to do it to you, don’t do it to a woman without her consent.
And that makes sense. But what we’re talking about here is whether a man can harangue a woman until she gives consent, because “sometimes that works”.
I have so many men like this in my life, it’s difficult for me to understand why others consider it normal to behave any other way.
In my opinion, that’s part of the problem. Your OP indicates a willingness to accept and preserve the status quo despite the fact it does serious harm to many. And the fact that, for the purposes of discussion, you don’t think it matters whether we’re talking about ‘‘repeatedly asking someone to lunch’’ or ‘‘repeatedly groping someone’’ is highly problematic. One of those things is illegal.
About 12 years ago, when I got up the nerve to tell my boss at the time about my harasser, that’s exactly how he saw the situation. “Aw, he just has a crush on you. And be honest, monstro. The two of you have been very friendly with each other, right? I’ve seen you eating lunch together. So why are you so afraid now?”
Because I was naive, I was totally caught off guard by this. I knew I would have to provide proof of the harassment (which is why I had saved the fucking letter), but I never thought I would have to justify why I felt harassed.
I wish I had asked my boss how he would feel if a big hulk of a guy had left him that letter. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have felt like he was just a target of a harmless crush.
Okay, if this is the point of your thread – what you want to debate – I don’t at all understand what it means. I find it almost impenetrable much less debatable.
It sounds like you’re saying that this sort of behavior* will be perpetrated by criminals and non-criminals alike. I don’t understand what there is to debate about that, either. Leaving aside the sexist stereotypes, there’s no actual argument in your OP, just a statement of facts as you see them.
Thus, the point of this thread remains unclear.
*which again, you’ve broadly interpreted in later posts to include both criminal and non-criminal actions, which seems to contradict this statement in your OP, and really I have no idea what you’re talking about.
I’m not trying to give you a hard time. I genuinely don’t get it. Your argument, if you’re making one, is unclear.
Forget it Spice Weasel. It’s FPtown.