# Ladies, let’s be honest **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 16, 2008, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382 "2008-12-16T12:13:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/101 "2008-12-18T01:44:27Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Lot of qualifications here, and an inaccuracy. > > “Clearly not interested”? Well, it’s going to be very clear to you, sure, but some people don’t pick on cues (and some people send out mixed cues) As per the original scenario, what is unclear about “no, and please stop asking.” Persisting past the point of any ambiguity is extremely obnoxious I don’t care if you’re the love child of Brad Pitt & George Clooney. ---
**Author:** ![accidentalyuppie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@accidentalyuppie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/accidentalyuppie)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/102 "2008-12-18T14:44:32Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Lot of qualifications here, and an inaccuracy. > But the big problem here is your best case scenario, which is similarly restricting the perspectives to your own: “in all probability, going to be annoying at best”–really? The best thing that could possibly happen is (with your own quaification “in all probability”) is that you’ll be annoyed? How about the perhaps less probable but still possible outcome that you WON’T be annoyed? Ever think of that? That maybe you’ll be charmed? Won over? Change your mind? Guess not, but you expect the guy to instantly go along with your program, and cease and desist because–no woman’s ever changed her mind in the history of the world? But you seem to be assuming that every random woman on the street is available. I can safely say that if I’m happily married, happily engaged, gay or just not into dating then annoyance is going to be the best outcome that some random guy trying to hit on me is going to get. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/103 "2008-12-18T14:57:45Z")
But the poor zhlub hitting on you has no way of knowing that you’re not just being reserved but secretly flirtatious when you respond to his “Hi, there!” by walking on without a word. Granted, I wouldn’t do it (hell, I wouldn’t talk to a strange women, period) but there are women who would like to flirt but who put up an initial barrier at first. He’s being slightly annoying, I admit freely, but as long as there are women who eventually (a few seconds? A few exchanges? A few blocks?) encourage guys to be persistent, then are the nicer, funnier, wittier persistent guys all total creeps and swine and assholes? Does talking to a strange women classify a guy as such? Does persisting for a few seocnd or a few exchanges classify one as a creep? Has any Doper women ever met the love of her life after an initial exchange that was far less than encouraging? Before responding, ladies, please remember: I’m just asking. I almost never talk to strange women (way too shy), am happily in a LTR that’s strictly monogamous, and have no dog in this fight at all (I have in fact two very pretty daughters, 18 and 22, and don’t want any guy not introduced to them by me after a careful screening even saying “Hi” to either of them.) ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/104 "2008-12-18T15:26:39Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > But the poor zhlub hitting on you has no way of knowing that you’re not just being reserved but secretly flirtatious when you respond to his “Hi, there!” by walking on without a word. The same way a homeless person knows you probably can’t be pestered into giving them money? Walking on by isn’t some sort of impossible-to-decode subtle womanly cue. It’s pretty clear. As is the difference between giving one word answers and looking away in line at the coffee shop rather than engaging in conversation (not that the latter means she’s anything except maybe friendly). It must be even harder if you’re a gay male. How to know that every guy you talk to (and you’ll have to talk to a lot, what with the whole 10 percent thing) isn’t just coy or closeted? Better keep hitting on random strangers. Only, if you’re male, that’s not the norm. You have some expectation of privacy and respect in public. You’re shopping with your wife, you’re on the phone with a client, you’re at an important business lunch– not the times you want to be approached about your relationship status, right? But I’ve been hit on by men in (very similar) situations. ---
**Author:** ![Vihaga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Vihaga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vihaga)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/105 "2008-12-18T16:09:19Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > But the poor zhlub hitting on you has no way of knowing that you’re not just being reserved but secretly flirtatious when you respond to his “Hi, there!” by walking on without a word. Is this a joke? Someone who cannot decode this oh-so-subtle rejection is so socially inept as to be an utterly unsuitable partner. As in, patently undateable for not exhibiting even the SMALLEST interest in or regard for the wishes of the person he’s pursuing. Which is creepy. It’s all about responding appropriately to social cues. ---
**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/106 "2008-12-18T16:25:39Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > But the poor zhlub hitting on you has no way of knowing that you’re not just being reserved but secretly flirtatious when you respond to his “Hi, there!” by walking on without a word. How on earth could that be mistaken for anything else but a snub? The scenario you painted in the OP was pretty clear, but you seem to be adding a lot of “what ifs” now and insisting we don’t get what you’re asking when it seems like what you’re asking is changing subtly when we give you a particular answer. Feel free to correct me if I’m misunderstanding you (as stridently as you wish), but first you started out with handsome man vs. troll, both persistently hitting on a woman. Does the woman treat both men equally or are her actions based on looks? Pretty cut and dried. But now it’s handsome man vs. troll - does the woman treat both equally, what about if the men are clueless, why do the women say no when they mean yes and why do the women like cuter men? This second scenario makes a couple of assumptions that weren’t there originally: women only like cute men, either aren’t clear on what they want or can be persuaded otherwise. For what it’s worth, I thought your OP was very, very clear, but it’s become less so as you add the qualifiers. You’ve started with a generalization and added your own “what ifs,” seemingly based on the women you work with who sound like narcissistic braggarts at worst and women having a regular bitch session at best. ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/107 "2008-12-18T16:27:09Z")
From the “Troll, Average, Model” thread: > [@Troll, Average, Model: How many different classifications of attractiveness? and . .](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/troll-average-model-how-many-different-classifications-of-attractiveness-and/477545/23): > > Which goes to the central problem in the “Ladies, let’s be honest” thread, where it has been suggested that guys who think of themselves as 3.5s are behaving with such clear and unmistakable offensiveness that almost any degree of hostile derision they receive is universally acknowledged to be merely fair, appropriate and just. > [@Troll, Average, Model: How many different classifications of attractiveness? and . .](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/troll-average-model-how-many-different-classifications-of-attractiveness-and/477545/27): > > Well, to be perfectly fair, some of the ladies whose views I charactered here would contend, I’m sure, that I’ve mispresented their positions, which seem to me frankly confusing and more than a little confused.But we should discuss this in that htread, and not here, at length, if you want to opine. > > Now, you’re a pleasant-looking guy, as I can attest from close personal observation (hey, not THAT close!), and I’m thinking maybe we can issue little business cards that qualify someone as “nice-looking by majority vote” and that person can carry the card around to pass out to people he hits on whenever they start dishing out the hostile rejections. “I am SO entitled to hit on you–see, it says so, right here! I’m a 3.5!” OK, this is where I stop being polite. I have never been rude or hostile to a guy because he made a single (socially appropriate) expression of interest (the gropey or vulgar guys yes, but they deserved it), nor have I personally witnessed such behavior from my female friends. I _have_, however, been rude and hostile to men (and seen others do so) AFTER they have ignored “polite rejection”, “polite but firm rejection”, and “barely civil point-blank rejection”. If you are determined to make a nuisance of yourself, you are going to be treated like a nuisance. What do you find so offensive about that idea? Why should women be obliged to be endlessly nice to men who are being obnoxiously pushy? Once I’ve said **NO** , repeatedly, and you’ve ignored me, repeatedly, I no longer have to be polite to you. JRB ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/108 "2008-12-18T16:38:12Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > “Clearly not interested”? Well, it’s going to be very clear to you, sure, but some people don’t pick on cues (and some people send out mixed cues), or engage in hopeful thinking when it’s slightly unrealistic to keep hope alive… Yeah, and we call those people creeps, jerks, and stalkers. I never understand guys who think that just because one woman out of 100,000 play the hard-to-get game, that justifies badgering the 99,000 who do not. Believe it or not, most time “no” means “no”. It doesn’t mean “no…but if you ask me 100 more times I may say yes”. ---
**Author:** ![AndLuna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@AndLuna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndLuna)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/109 "2008-12-18T16:44:29Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Lot of qualifications here, and an inaccuracy. > > “Clearly not interested”? Well, it’s going to be very clear to you, sure, but some people don’t pick on cues (and some people send out mixed cues) If saying “No, and please stop asking” isn’t clear, I don’t really know how I can be any clearer. > [@](#): > > But the big problem here is your best case scenario, which is similarly restricting the perspectives to your own: You asked women to give their perspectives honestly. I gave you mine. > [@](#): > > How about the perhaps less probable but still possible outcome that you WON’T be annoyed? Ever think of that? That maybe you’ll be charmed? Won over? Change your mind? Guess not, but you expect the guy to instantly go along with your program, and cease and desist because–no woman’s ever changed her mind in the history of the world? Yes, if I have told somebody clearly that I am not interested in them, I do expect them to “go along with my program” by not continuing to hit on me. Is this really incredibly unreasonable? > [@accidentalyuppie](#): > > But you seem to be assuming that every random woman on the street is available. I can safely say that if I’m happily married, happily engaged, gay or just not into dating then annoyance is going to be the best outcome that some random guy trying to hit on me is going to get. Yes, this. I am not available, I’m not interested in dating anyone, and it’s really not likely I’m going to change my mind about that. I’m sorry if I made that unclear by throwing in “probably”; I should have left it out. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/110 "2008-12-18T16:49:44Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Yeah, and we call those people creeps, jerks, and stalkers. > > I never understand guys who think that just because one woman out of 100,000 play the hard-to-get game, that justifies badgering the 99,000 who do not. Believe it or not, most time “no” means “no”. It doesn’t mean “no…but if you ask me 100 more times I may say yes”. Man, that one bitch (or those 1,000 bitches–I’m not following your creative subtraction there) is really ruining life for you, isn’t she? If it weren’t for her, that selfish cunt, everything would be so simple, wouldn’t it? I’ve started a separate thread, soliticiting stories of open, clear, plain rejecting behavior that eventually blossomed into a relationship. Let’s see what happens there. So far, not much. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/111 "2008-12-18T17:00:32Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I never understand guys who think that just because one woman out of 100,000 play the hard-to-get game, that justifies badgering the 99,000 who do not. Believe it or not, most time “no” means “no”. It doesn’t mean “no…but if you ask me 100 more times I may say yes”. Someone proposed this before, a while back in another thread, and I liked it at the time so I’ll repeat it. If you’re so confused or turned off by women who play games and say ‘No’ when they mean ‘Yes,’ call their bluff. Take them at their word. You could very well be doing them a favor by no longer badgering them. Or you’ve saved yourself some drama with someone who doesn’t communicate in a way that is clear to you. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/112 "2008-12-18T19:25:16Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Man, that one bitch (or those 1,000 bitches–I’m not following your creative subtraction there) is really ruining life for you, isn’t she? If it weren’t for her, that selfish cunt, everything would be so simple, wouldn’t it? The problem isn’t her, it’s the idiot who turns himself into nuisance just to score a date with her. Is this really so hard to understand that you have to feign ignorance from my math? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/113 "2008-12-18T19:35:39Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The problem isn’t her, it’s the idiot who turns himself into nuisance just to score a date with her. > > Is this really so hard to understand that you have to feign ignorance from my math? Yeah, but if she’d get with the program, you’d have an absolute statement to argue with me. Let’s see how many Dopers come forth in the other thread–maybe it’s closer to 1,000 Dopers than a fraction of one. That really was a mathematical error? I was teasing you about what I took for a typo. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/114 "2008-12-18T19:38:28Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Yeah, but if she’d get with the program, you’d have an absolute statement to argue with me. Let’s see how many Dopers come forth in the other thread–maybe it’s closer to 1,000 Dopers than a fraction of one. Okay, so what you’re saying is that because some girls like persistence and some guys suck at social cues, if a girl walks away with a look on her face like she’s seen a rotting dead dog, you should try harder? Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/115 "2008-12-18T19:53:03Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Yeah, but if she’d get with the program, you’d have an absolute statement to argue with me. Are you sure you have no dog in this? Because I’m wondering why I’m supposed to be arguing with _you_ at all. Unless you’re the kind of creepface idiot who badgers women for dates because 1 out of 100,000 might finally break down after you harass her 100 times and say yes, then you have nothing to be defensive about. But oddly it seems like this isn’t the case. > [@](#): > > That really was a mathematical error? When I post in a rushed manner (as I’m wont to do when I’m busy with other things), I make all kind of mistakes. Grammar, math, spelling. What’s so surprising about that? I gotta wonder why you’re being so literal with something that was so clearly not to be taken literally, but okay. You go boy. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/116 "2008-12-18T19:57:55Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Shame you aren’t just a touch sharper then, dear. > > Hey, rigorous honesty was asked for, and I’ve given it. IMO, having sufficient self-regard as to believe that not everyone is equally entitled to get in my pants is a good thing. > > You might have noticed, if you weren’t so busy being offended, that I didn’t say “some poor soul less genetically blessed than I”, I said “a middle aged man with a ponytail and skull-patterned gym pants”. These things are not exactly alike. A well groomed guy who looks like Wallace Shawn has a way better shot than the above-mentioned troll, even if said troll were sporting Clooneyface. Whatever. I’d Pit you, but we’re not on the same plane of existence. I just wish soooomeday oooone day, a hunk you’re slobbering on gives you the treatment you reserve to “trolls”. You know, out of Kharmenfreude. ---
**Author:** ![phouka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c5a1d2/32.png) [@phouka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phouka)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/117 "2008-12-18T20:22:08Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > You are correct, that’s exactly what this is, but I don’t see anything unfair about asking for honest responses to a philosophical exercise. Which you got. > [@](#): > > You may find it hard to be honest, or you may find it discomforting, but philosophy is not intended to soothe you, just to answer questions, and pose others. If you’re intent on justifying your own personal behavior above all else, you may well find philosophical questions unfair or difficult or too probing or off the true issue or whatever, but I don’t really see how what I’ve done here is unfair or even especially challenging. Let me get this straight. I answered your question with consideration, explained why I thought the question was flawed, and did my best to do so in neutral, unthreatening terms. In return, you suggest that I may find it hard to be honest, find telling the truth discomfiting, or would prefer to be soothed instead of participate in adult conversation. Did you intend to be _that_ insulting? Because if you did, I’d be happy to see you in the Pit, keyboards drawn. I even have a thread title in mind. If you didn’t, I suggest you muster a worthwhile apology. ---
**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/118 "2008-12-18T20:38:10Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Lot of qualifications here, and an inaccuracy. > > “Clearly not interested”? Well, it’s going to be very clear to you, sure, but some people don’t pick on cues (and some people send out mixed cues), or engage in hopeful thinking when it’s slightly unrealistic to keep hope alive–I don;t know how optimism is necessarily “creepy,” even if it doesn’t quite fit with your program or your plans. (To say nothing of “continuing to pester you” for someone who may think, incorrectly, that he’s showing you that he feels strongly about his interest in you, so strongly that he hopes you’ll try a little harder to understand what he’s offering you. To you, of course, he’s offering a pile of lukewarm diarrhea, but not everyone is willing to look at himself from your perspective instantly. He may think he’s a good catch, and wants you to think well of him, too. > > But the big problem here is your best case scenario, which is similarly restricting the perspectives to your own: “in all probability, going to be annoying at best”–really? The best thing that could possibly happen is (with your own quaification “in all probability”) is that you’ll be annoyed? How about the perhaps less probable but still possible outcome that you WON’T be annoyed? Ever think of that? That maybe you’ll be charmed? Won over? Change your mind? Guess not, but you expect the guy to instantly go along with your program, and cease and desist because–no woman’s ever changed her mind in the history of the world? I sincerely suggest you print out the above quoted response and take it to a therapist, right away. In this quote, and other places in this thread, you are feeling sorry for these poor, poor men who are just trying to optimistic and persistent and how these poor fellas don’t always able to pick up cues. You even go so far as to allude to the idea that we don’t know what we’re talking about when it comes to our own responses. This, once again, proves that you started this clusterfuck of a thread with a specific outcome in mind. No matter how many women come in and tell you that it is ANNOYING to have a man you are not interested in repeatedly bother you, you keep throwing out your worthless “What if!?” and pretty much act as if we don’t really know what we think and want. Hmm, just like the jerk in your OP. And Jesus-jumped-up-Christ you even say that we expect the guy to “instantly go along” with our program when we say no? THAT is the creepiest thing I’ve read in a long time. Why on earth do women need to say “No” and then justify their reasons, or worse yet.. be badgered and have men think it wrong that they have to go along with our “program”? NO MAN has a right to get angry if I say no to his request to get to know me better. No woman is obligated to even return his greeting, let alone go out with him. I don’t think you even realize how offensive this idea is. You’re suggesting that it’s unfair that women make the decision and the men have to go along with it. Do you also think it is wrong when a man gets told “No” by his date when he wants to have sex? Is it wrong that he has to go along with her program? Look how many women have told you that they would find the guy in the OP (and in all of your “what if” edits) irritating and you still come back trying to twist and cajole and try to get us to say the opposite. You claim you’re too shy to be the guy in the OP, but you’re doing a damn good job of being as irritating here in this thread. I hope you stay in your LTR for a long, long time. Like, seriously long. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/119 "2008-12-18T20:40:31Z")
> [@phouka](#): > > Did you intend to be _that_ insulting? Because if you did, I’d be happy to see you in the Pit, keyboards drawn. I even have a thread title in mind. If you didn’t, I suggest you muster a worthwhile apology. Did not mean to give offense, and was not specifically questioning your honesty or anything else–just tossing around some possiblities. If they don’t apply to you, so much the better. We can explore further what’s going on here–some of it’s murky, sensitive, and misunderstood, especially by me. Pit me if you must, or if you doubt my sincerity in claiming that I’m mostly on your side, personally, but am expressing some remaining confusion about exactly what you’re saying and your reasons for saying it. ---
**Author:** ![phouka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c5a1d2/32.png) [@phouka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phouka)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382/120 "2008-12-18T21:12:12Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] Did not mean to give offense, and was not specifically questioning your honesty or anything else [/quote] Yes, you did question my honesty. When you say “you may find it hard to be honest”, you are questioning my honesty. Specifically, you imply that I am either a weakling who can’t put out the effort necessary to be honest or that I am as pathologically incapable of speaking truthfully as a diabetic is of producing adequate insulin. > [@](#): > > –just tossing around some possiblities. Bullshit. You were deflecting my answer by attacking my character. > [@](#): > > If they don’t apply to you, so much the better. Bullshit of the passive-aggressive variety. If you didn’t believe they applied to me, you wouldn’t have used them to respond to me. > [@](#): > > We can explore further what’s going on here–some of it’s murky, sensitive, and misunderstood, especially by me. Oh, _ **may** _ we? > [@](#): > > Pit me if you must- If I must? No, if I choose. You see, as an adult, I understand that my considered actions are a result of decisions that I make. Not just something that happens. > [@](#): > > - or if you doubt my sincerity in claiming that I’m mostly on your side Bwahahahahahahahaha! Oh, stop! Please! My sides are killing me. **prr** , you’re not on my side. Not mostly, not even partly. You’re not sincere, either. If you’d been sincere, you would have started a thread about the two trollops in your office who have the gall to whine about being hit on more than once when they admittedly went out with men who asked them out more than once. You didn’t come here to understand another point of view. You came here to get your head patted and be told that yes, women are all shallow, hypocritical creatures who don’t know what’s good for them. > [@](#): > > . . . am happily in a LTR that’s strictly monogamous, and have no dog in this fight at all. . . Hey, good for you, but that’s completely irrelevant. For you see, just as not-being-in-a-relationship doesn’t mean that you’re a loser, being-in-a-relationship doesn’t mean that you’re a winner. You have a dog in this fight. Maybe you bear the scars of previous encounters, maybe you see it going on all around you and figure if you weren’t in a relationship figure you’d take the worst of it, maybe you’re madly in love with one of the trollops and are designing a plan of action for when you’re single next. Doesn’t matter. You are so emotionally invested in this, you can’t bring yourself to consider the points of view you’ve been given. You dressed up your question as a hypothetical, moved the goal every time you felt threatened, and insulted the very people who were trying to help you out. Also, you suck at apologies. Now, I’m going to go eat a healthy lunch, find my thesaurus, and start that Pit thread. I’ll post the link when I’m done. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-let-s-be-honest/477382.md?page=7)