\
Gee, that’s funny. I think you’re a great, knowledgable, helpful, astute poster, other than in this thread. So far. You really didn’t think some of those refusals to accept (or even to understand) my hypothetical (which you seem think was “interesting”) were a little bit disingenuous? I had to accept ALL of them as totally raw, soul-searchingly honest for you to think well of me? That’s a shame.
Because they named it Dogfight instead?
Point taken. That WAS mean-spirited.
For every woman who can’t believe an “ugly” man asked her out, there’s also a guy who wonders if it’s appropriate to ask a girl if she’ll wear make up to make herself look more attractive. Or a guy who will screw a fat girl but be afraid to be seen publicly with with her.
It sucks that looks matter, but women aren’t any more shallow than men. And many women here have said that creepy trumps ugly in terms of “which is worse.”
Many more have said that the two are indistinguishable.
Perhaps because desperation is unattractive. Simply put, repeating the same act and expecting different results is, to many, a sign of desperation.
Well, that’s a nice distinction, I must say.
Please don’t say that…PLEASE!
Say yes.
I had the same reaction as LHoD. The people in that thread clearly understood your hypothetical. They just didn’t agree with your conclusions.
You also came off as very creepy yourself. You seemed not to want to accept that persistent unwanted attention was unpleasant for almost all women, regardless of how attractive the man is. Yes, there are cases when a man does “get the girl” by those methods, but that proves nothing. I’d suspect that most of instances involve a woman who is not mentally healthy, and the rest involve situations that are so unique as to be effectively irrelevant to any general discussion of the issue.
You seem to believe that women should routinely give men full opportunity to make their case as to why the woman should be interested in them. But why should they? A woman might indeed be making a mistake if she blows some guy off without giving him a chance. But it’s her choice to take that risk. She’s not stupid. She knows that there is some slim possibility that she might be missing out on a good thing. But there are opportunity costs to allowing the guy to continue making his pitch–including the fact that in many cases, allowing the interaction to continue leads the man to think that she owes him something.
She, like anyone else, has to pick and choose how to spend her time and energy, and choosing to avoid spending resources on a proposition with a very low probability of success is an entirely rational decision. And her interpretation of the probability of success is undoubtedly more accurate than the man’s, regardless of what you think about women’s ability to judge these things.
Your statements about how some men, including yourself, are not very good at reading social cues, and how their behavior should be (at least partially) excused by that also came off as creepy. If a guy can’t read social cues, that’s his problem, not the woman’s. She shouldn’t have to suffer because of his ineptitude. If a man is aware that he isn’t so good in that department, he does have options. He can work on getting better at it and/or he can try to err on the side of reserve. I’m not very good at reading social cues myself, and I do both of these things. I may miss some social opportunities because of the latter, but I’d rather seem a little aloof than seem like a big ol’ pest.
Your unwillingness to accept women’s choices and wishes as fully valid probably informs your conclusion that women tend to be crueler when discussing unwanted sexual attention. They seem bitchy to you because you don’t fully understand where they’re coming from, and you don’t accept that a given situation, in their eyes, may be more unpleasant than you realize. You may see a situation as pretty benign, whereas a woman might see it as frightening. Her interpretation is as reasonable as yours.
I could go on, but I won’t. I’ll just reiterate the following:
It wasn’t your OP that was the problem. It was your subsequent responses.
See? I don’t even know what you look like and you’re creepin’ me out! 
How YOU doin’?
Not everyone agrees with this assessment, of course, including the first few responses telling me how my hypothetical situation didn’t apply, and answering questions I hadn’t asked (in some cases deliberately and pointedly), and otherwise spewing ill-formed arguments assuming a hostility I didn’t express and do not feel. They clearly did NOT agree with my hypothetical, since they refused to accept its simple, clearly defined terms, and insisted on substituting their own fucked up principles and then criticizing me for the assumptions behind them.
But thanks for your assessments of my personality–I’m sure you’re right about parts of it, especially the parts I’ve anticipated, such as my speculations (in this thread and that one) about a “given situation, in their eyes, [that] may be more unpleasant than you realize. You may see a situation as pretty benign, whereas a woman might see it as frightening.” Did you not read what I wrote above about “maybe women are more scared when approached by a stranger of the opposite sex, and reasonably so, causing them to vent with a little more force than guys do. Since few guys have actually considered that they might get raped as a result of talking to a strange woman, they might be more low-key in recounting any such encounters”? Or do you disagree with that assessment, or am I just too much of a creep to have articulated that notion? Talk about unwarranted hostility and defensiveness!
No, sweetie. You are being pitted for:
Interesting. The “honest” posters are those that confirm what you apparently already believe.
You offered this opinion in post #124, after arguing for three pages that any woman who is offended by overly-persistent male attention is either a shallow narcissist or a drama queen.
You claim to want “honesty”, and that you are willing to examine the idea you “could be wrong”. I’ve seen no evidence from your posts in these threads that either of these assertions is in fact true.
JRB
I cosign 100% with Green Bean. This is not quantam mechanics we’re talking about. Anyone who can’t understand why hounding someone for a date is obnoxious behavior that is likely to incite anger–regardless of looks–is almost by definition a creep. Even “nice guys” know this. So I disagree with the OP that this is what prr is.
You had no basis for questioning anyone’s honesty in that thread. Why would anyone feel it necessary to lie over something like that? Only you seem to think that preferences over whom to reject vs accept represents some reflection of character.
In fairness, he’s sick. And he’s obscene.
Number 3 was my biggest problem with the whole discussion. I initially thought it was interesting, because I’ve known a few women like those prr described in his workplace. However, the whole thread became more and more frustrating as new, previously absent, qualifiers were added.
Then as the icing on the cake, prr indicated here that having a woman walk out without speaking to someone after they were repeatedly asking them out might actually be some sort of come-on for the clueless.
How in the hell is that in any way, shape or form “secretly flirtatious?” I didn’t want to go there, but for lack of a better analogy, that’s like saying the rape victim wanted it because she was wearing slutty clothes.
Even a “lady” like in the OP of prr’s thread wouldn’t sit around while some asshole pestered her like that. If some guy were to assume that such behavior were secretly flirtatious, I’d recommend some therapy, not a date.
Reverend Smith? How did you recognize me? I thought I was incognito!
Enjoy,
Steven
Oh I had a lot to say, but I am too tired…so I will just add this to the discussion.
I have only been posting on the SDB for a few months, but have lurked around here on and off for a few years. My friend would send me a heads up to a thread she thought I might like now and then. I find the people who post here are all pretty intelligent, and maybe not the best cross section of the population to do your little scenario on. You would probably get a lot more answers to your liking if you posed the same thing to a broader bunch of women. There. Happy? BUT<<< and that is a big assed BUTT. I don’t think anyone was being dishonest, or at least not everyone but the two people who agreed with you!
Are women meaner?
I am sure men and women are pretty even on the meanness scale. We just go about it in different ways.
But I have to say, I have never seen a women wearing the equivalent of a “No fat Chicks” t-shirt.
The same posters have said in the same posts you’re citing (and I think elsewhere) that people who keep persisting (ugly or handsome) after being turned down will become quickly dismissed. Not that much different from what others have said, other than they’re more honest (and yes, that is true, IMHO, and I hate that you put it in quotes) by admitting that looks do matter, at least initially.
But annoying behavior is annoying regardless of physical appearance.
“Many Zhlubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!”