At first I was thinking that the people here being argumentative were trolling for fun. How could they not get it? But then I thought of how we’ve all sat next to a blabbermouth on a flight who ignores all the signs that you don’t want to listen. You have an open book in your hand, a blank look on your face, and only respond with non-committal grunts, yet the person drones on and on without regard to your disinterest. I’m assuming that many of those same people are here in this thread.
If anyone can look at that woman in the video and feel entitled to randomly call out “Hi” to her, do the world a favor and wait for the other person to speak first. You may not be able to see her disinterest, but we can. So just wait for the other person to say something first and the problem will be solved.
Well, look. If you were to roll around in a bunch of ants, would you be surprised if a pack of anteaters (or perhaps armadillos) showed up to lick you? This is why it’s impossible to have a rational conversation about this. In order to do so, we have to acknowledge that the parents have a part to play in all this by dressing their kids up in Halloween costumes.
Furthermore, giving out free candy to kids on Halloween builds community and neighborhood. It’s a social lubricant, if you will. And by giving free candy out to kids from my minivan, I was merely trying to spray my social lubricant all over the neighborhood. I think we can all agree that this was perfectly acceptable behavior.
First off, that guy comes off as a misogynistic asshole with his use of the scare quotes.
Secondly, I’m not getting the sense that this guy ever felt unsafe.
I think sexual dynamics are not being properly addressed.
In an environment with a large set of potential suitors, as any street in NYC would attest, it if often sexually advantageous to distinguish one’s self among the pack. Bold behavior, including direct communication and repeated questions, can at least show a woman you are interested. I imagine that if a camera followed one of the creepers for 10 hours, we might find that sometimes their behavior does indeed work.
My point is not to defend behavior that is, at the least, annoying, but to show that sometimes subversive behavior can be effective. Some women may like the undue attention of a creepy stranger.
I don’t think this is particularly relevant, because there are a lot of things that might “work” occasionally but are still wrong. Some people might have a fantasy of being punched in the face by a stranger in public. That doesn’t mean punching strangers in the face is justified in any way.
You’re right. Reading this thread I’ve been having flashbacks to the Nice Guy threads and how so many of them seem clueless to body language. The lady in the video is broadcasting loud and clear that she’s not interested in interaction - not making eye contact with the people she passes, looking straight ahead, blank expression and walking purposefully. The men who speak to her are doing so despite a complete lack of invitation to do so. So are they unable to read body language, or do they not care that this is a person who isn’t looking for interaction? Either way, that makes them seem like creeps.
Being a fat, frumpy, middle aged woman, I never have to deal with this sort of thing but I am friendly and I tend to meet people’s eyes, smile and occasionally greet strangers in passing, so these sorts of greetings would feel like a natural response to my behavior. Seeing it happen to someone who is being so closed and reserved is weird. There is literally nothing in her body language or behavior that suggests a greeting would be welcomed or wanted, yet folks are still talking to her.
It is your assertion that cat-calling and approaching a random woman on the street has never lead to sex for the man? Would you suggest that the odds of meeting a sexual partner on the street are greater if you ignore them than if you engage them?
Are you aware that Craigslist is full of ads from women who want to sleep with strangers? Subversive sexuality is a real thing. That it is not the accepted standard is why it is…subversive.
Well, look. Some of the children liked getting free candy from me out of my minivan, until the parents got upset and made me stop. I imagine that if we had filmed me for ten hours, a lot of children would have been very happy to get free candy.
My point here is that giving free candy to children from a minivan sometimes works.
I am confused. Why else elicit the candy-giving-minivan trope other than to conflate pedophilia with subversive, albeit consensual intercourse?
One can cat-call and end up having legal sex with a woman. One cannot lure a child with candy into a van and end up having legal sex with the child. The analogy falls very flat for me.
Yes, I think you are confused (or maybe all the strawmen you are full of is affecting your judgment). I clearly stated in a previous post that I did not invite the children into my minivan. And why would I? Have you ever seen children eat candy? They get it everywhere. I just had my minivan detailed, I didn’t want any children messing it up.
I was just giving away candy. For free. On Halloween. Which is something that everyone does, and yet I got criticized for it. Even though some of the children liked the candy. Why should I get criticized for something when there are a few people who enjoyed what I was doing?
As for this “candy-giving-minivan trope” thing, I have some expertise on tropes, having perused the TV Tropes website on occasion. Since I was not attempting to lure children into my van, or attempting to in any way initiate sexual contact with them, the trope does not apply to me.
Well, look. I made a point about the dynamics of giving away free candy. And then you injected a strawman about sex with children, which is not something I was talking about at all. I clearly explained earlier in the thread why I was giving away free candy, and not once did I bring up anything sexual. You are the one who did that. Sorry, the one making up strawmen here is you.
So you can’t explain the link. You brought up yourself giving away candy from your minivan for no reason whatsoever.
In that case, I should have left the vacuum of reason in your wake rather than seek an explanation. I actually thought you had something substantive to say.
