Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The war of atheism
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 226 of 526 (680279)
11-18-2012 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by crashfrog
11-18-2012 9:19 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
If I've been misrepresenting RW, it has not been intentional, as you seem to be accusing me. However, based on RW's own words, I'd say she does indeed believe she was sexually objectified in the elevator:
"I pointed out that she posted a transcript of my video but conveniently left off the fact that I had already expressed my desire to go to sleep. I also pointed out that approaching a single woman in an elevator to invite her back to your hotel room is the definition of unsolicited sexual comment. But those are unimportant details in comparison to the first quoted sentence, which demonstrates an ignorance of Feminism 101 — in this case, the difference between sexual attraction and sexual objectification. The former is great — be attracted to people! Flirt, have fun, make friends, have sex, meet the love of your life, whatever floats your boat. But the latter involves dismissing a person’s feelings, desires, and identity, with a complete disinterest in how one’s actions will affect the object in question. "
There you go. In her own words. In the elevatorgate video, she accuses the creep in the elevator of "sexualizing" her. In her blog, she states that because she made it clear to the creep that she wanted to go to bed, this constituted "sexual objectification."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2012 9:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 8:21 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 227 of 526 (680330)
11-19-2012 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by crashfrog
11-18-2012 5:25 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
crashfrog writes:
No, they do. That's part of what makes them adults.
No, really, they don't. Not everybody is blessed with the same social abilities. Some people may be "socially awkward". It's not their fault, and neither are they mysogynists, merely because their empathy isn't like everybody else's.
And if they do creep someone out as a result of bad judgement, guess what - the way you solve that is by taking your bro aside and letting him know he's being a creeper. The way you don't solve it is by sexist violence visited on those who noticed he was being creepy.
Yes, like I said, they way you solve it is by telling the person that's creeping you out that they are creeping you out. At this point the "creeper" should apologize, and simply move on. That's how adults should behave, in my oppinion.
It just means you're immature.
I shall prove you wrong by letting this comment slide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2012 5:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 228 of 526 (680350)
11-19-2012 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by roxrkool
11-18-2012 10:18 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
First, show me where I EVER wrote that it was "Watson's" feminist theory
Well, it has to be Watson's feminist theory specifically, or else once again you're trying to tar her by association with views you don't have any evidence she holds.
I don't agree with her assessment because she would have to be a mind reader to know what was on the man's mind.
To know if she was sexualized? I don't follow. Surely she only has to know her own mind, her own reaction, to determine that. If I insult you, for instance, you don't have to read my mind to know if you were insulted, you only have to read your own.
"Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one's sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification."
So didn't that happen, though? I mean, what part of the conversation in the elevator was it where Rebecca Watson's individual desires and preferences qua her as an individual (as opposed to her as a conduit for his sexual pleasure) were afforded his interest? When did that happen? Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by roxrkool, posted 11-18-2012 10:18 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Straggler, posted 11-19-2012 8:29 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 231 by Huntard, posted 11-19-2012 9:13 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 232 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2012 12:12 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 229 of 526 (680351)
11-19-2012 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by roxrkool
11-18-2012 11:22 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
But the latter involves dismissing a person’s feelings, desires, and identity, with a complete disinterest in how one’s actions will affect the object in question.
So prove her wrong. It sounds like she did express a personal preference, which was to go to her room and get some sleep.
Does the rest of the conversation, as reported (and recall that neither participant has contested the facts of the conversation) indicate that her desire and preference was afforded equal attention to his? For that matter - has it in this thread?
Neither of us have to be mind-readers to solve this, because as you'll note, none of her definition of "sexual objectification" involves plumbing the depths of anybody's psyche. It's not about thoughts, it's about actions. Did his actions in the elevator evince a lot of attention about her feelings and desires, or just about his own?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by roxrkool, posted 11-18-2012 11:22 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(3)
Message 230 of 526 (680355)
11-19-2012 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by crashfrog
11-19-2012 8:17 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Crash writes:
To know if she was sexualized? I don't follow. Surely she only has to know her own mind, her own reaction, to determine that. If I insult you, for instance, you don't have to read my mind to know if you were insulted, you only have to read your own.
If you say hello to me and I am insulted by that should you be criticised for insulting me or should I be criticised for being over-sensitive?
She may well have felt sexualised by the encounter in question. But the mere fact that she felt that way doesn't necessarily make the man a misogynist does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 8:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 2:24 PM Straggler has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(2)
Message 231 of 526 (680361)
11-19-2012 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by crashfrog
11-19-2012 8:17 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
crashfrog writes:
If I insult you, for instance, you don't have to read my mind to know if you were insulted, you only have to read your own.
The problem however, is that different people get insulted by different things. If I'm talking to a Hindu, and metntion that I regularly eat beef, he could get offended. If I'm talking to a Christian, and say that I don't believe Jesus existed as portrayed in the bible, he could get offended. If I'm talking to a random guy on the street, and I mention my favourite football team is X, he could get offended. We don't know what our conversation partners find offensive, if we don't know them any better, and therefore, people will get offended all the time. The proper response is not to act like some grave injustice was commited, but to point out to your conversation partner that what he just said is offensive to you, and the proper response from your conversation partner is to then appologize and move on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 8:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 2:31 PM Huntard has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(2)
Message 232 of 526 (680384)
11-19-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by crashfrog
11-19-2012 8:17 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
Well, it has to be Watson's feminist theory specifically, or else once again you're trying to tar her by association with views you don't have any evidence she holds.
You are wrong. I don't think you even know what RW's views are.
To know if she was sexualized? I don't follow. Surely she only has to know her own mind, her own reaction, to determine that. If I insult you, for instance, you don't have to read my mind to know if you were insulted, you only have to read your own.
You are wrong. Read the definition of Sexual Objectification. It hinges on the man internalizing her as an object, rather than a human being. She has not presented evidence that this man objectified her. Her *feelings* on the matter do not constitute *proof* of what his state of mind was at the time. She is speculating that he viewed her as an object. She has every right to feel uncomfortable with the proposition, but not to accuse him specifically of objectifying her.
If you insult me, should I take it mean you hate women? Should I take it to mean you are going to assault me? Should I feel free to accuse you of such things publicly? The previous are not logical inferences, even if they *may* be true. If you insult me, my reaction will depend on many factors, but I will not necessarily default to thinking the absolute worst of you. Yet. I need to see more before coming to a different conclusion.
So didn't that happen, though? I mean, what part of the conversation in the elevator was it where Rebecca Watson's individual desires and preferences qua her as an individual (as opposed to her as a conduit for his sexual pleasure) were afforded his interest? When did that happen? Be specific.
Unless she read the man's mind, how could she possibly know hew sees her as an object? His words certainly belie her accusation.
He said she was interesting rather than groping her with his eyes and stating, "nice tits," suggesting he appreciates her brain (or personality) more than her body. He issued her an invitation to his room, giving her a choice, and not a "let's fuck." These things all point to him wanting to get to know HER better. I see no objectification in his words.
Her *feeling* objectified does not necessarily make it so.
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.
Edited by roxrkool, : Punctuation, grammar, etc....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 8:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 2:38 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 233 of 526 (680427)
11-19-2012 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Straggler
11-19-2012 8:29 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
If you say hello to me and I am insulted by that should you be criticised for insulting me or should I be criticised for being over-sensitive?
We're not talking about a situation where someone said "hello" and in doing so, insulted another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Straggler, posted 11-19-2012 8:29 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Straggler, posted 11-20-2012 7:12 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 234 of 526 (680432)
11-19-2012 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Huntard
11-19-2012 9:13 AM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
The problem however, is that different people get insulted by different things.
You're right. But the response to that isn't to throw up our hands and refuse to criticize people who insult others, because we can't read their minds and know that they're not Martians, or something, who just don't understand our human insult technology.
Some people need to hit the guardrails to know where they are. That's fine, but they shouldn't act like that and then expect people not to let them know where the guardrails are. And they shouldn't expect people not to criticize them for not yet having matured into the adult technique of knowing where the guardrails are before you hit them. All things considered, we as a society prefer that people live according to the latter technique instead of the former, and people who haven't yet caught up to that should expect to suffer criticism for it - even criticism they may find unfair. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
The proper response is not to act like some grave injustice was commited, but to point out to your conversation partner that what he just said is offensive to you, and the proper response from your conversation partner is to then appologize and move on.
That's true. But Rebecca Watson didn't act like "some grave injustice was committed". In fact, she did exactly what you suggested - she mentioned to the guy, and to others, that his proposition caused offense. Did he apologize and move on? I don't know. But in response to Watson, a great deal of entitled men suddenly acted like some grave injustice was committed merely by Watson pointing out that offense was caused, an injustice that they tried to rectify by "punishing" her with threats of sexualized violence.
That's the actual controversy we're talking about. Not that Watson took offense to an elevator proposition, but that her simple statement that she had taken offense instigated a torrent of sexist filth, including by a number of very public figures in movement atheism that should have known better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Huntard, posted 11-19-2012 9:13 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Huntard, posted 11-19-2012 3:03 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 235 of 526 (680436)
11-19-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by roxrkool
11-19-2012 12:12 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
It hinges on the man internalizing her as an object, rather than a human being.
Well, no. It hinges on the woman, not on the man, and whether the woman's independent, individual desires and feelings are a function of concern and attention or if they're simply ignored.
And they were ignored. We don't need to read anyone's mind to know that, because ignoring them was an action and not a thought. That happened because the Elevator Guy did it, not because he thought it. His thoughts are completely irrelevant.
If you insult me, should I take it mean you hate women?
It would depend on how I insulted you, wouldn't it?
He issued her an invitation to his room, giving her a choice, and not a "let's fuck."
He issued an invitation for her to do something he wanted her to do, not what she had already said she had wanted to do. The part where he ignored her individual desires and wishes, and therefore objectified her, was in his actions, not his thoughts. That's why we don't have to be mind-readers, merely word-readers.
She was certainly objectified, QED. Whether or not she was sexually objectified, I suppose, depends on whether you view "coffee in my room from the shitty, in-room coffeemaker and months-old single-cup packets" as a genuine if somewhat self-defeating invitation or as a pretty obvious pretext for casual sex. To the credit of most of Elevator Guy's erstwhile defenders, few have been so stupid as to genuinely suggest that it may have been the former, so we can comfortably conclude that Watson was, indeed, sexually objectified during the encounter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2012 12:12 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Rahvin, posted 11-19-2012 2:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 236 of 526 (680440)
11-19-2012 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by crashfrog
11-19-2012 2:38 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
It hinges on the woman, not on the man, and whether the woman's independent, individual desires and feelings are a function of concern and attention or if they're simply ignored.
And they were ignored. We don't need to read anyone's mind to know that, because ignoring them was an action and not a thought.
This is interesting to me, because in order to know Ms Watson's individual desires or feelings, "elevator guy" would have needed to, as you say, "read her mind."
He had no way to reasonably know that Ms Watson would feel objectified by a simple proposition to have some coffee. I still understand why she felt the way she did...
...but the standard of polite action that you're holding to requires that people read each other's minds to determine how they would or would not be offended in relatively mundane situations.
I don't think your position here passes the "reasonable person" test that we would normally use in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 2:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by 1.61803, posted 11-19-2012 2:58 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 3:12 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 240 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2012 3:54 PM Rahvin has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 237 of 526 (680441)
11-19-2012 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Rahvin
11-19-2012 2:46 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
I don't think your position here passes the "reasonable person" test that we would normally use in a sexual harassment lawsuit.
I think Crash is playing devils advocate. He is having you all on. I would not be surprised to see Oni chime in on how the fatty in the elevator should be using the stairs. Still interesting to read all these interpretations.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Rahvin, posted 11-19-2012 2:46 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 5:06 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 238 of 526 (680442)
11-19-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by crashfrog
11-19-2012 2:31 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
crashfrog writes:
You're right. But the response to that isn't to throw up our hands and refuse to criticize people who insult others, because we can't read their minds and know that they're not Martians, or something, who just don't understand our human insult technology.
The problem is some people get offended way to easily. In fact, I'd say most people get offended way to easily. Someone mentioning his favourite football team should be critisized? I know you personally mentioned you don't believe Jesus existed as portrayed in the bible. Should you be critisized for that, seeing as you insult some Christians by saying that?
Some people need to hit the guardrails to know where they are. That's fine, but they shouldn't act like that and then expect people not to let them know where the guardrails are.
Of course. A reasonable way to go about things.
And they shouldn't expect people not to criticize them for not yet having matured into the adult technique of knowing where the guardrails are before you hit them.
Bullshit. Some guardrails are far to easy to hit, and hitting them deserves no criticism whatsoever.
All things considered, we as a society prefer that people live according to the latter technique instead of the former, and people who haven't yet caught up to that should expect to suffer criticism for it - even criticism they may find unfair. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Yes, it is. Me not knowing that someone gets offended by me mentioning my favourite football team is absolutely a good defense for not critisizing me for offering that oppinion.
That's true. But Rebecca Watson didn't act like "some grave injustice was committed". In fact, she did exactly what you suggested - she mentioned to the guy, and to others, that his proposition caused offense.
Great. She did however make a youtube video because of the incident. I could be malicious right now and claim that ths offends me, and we should critisize her for offending me, but I won't do that, since a) that's not true and b) I am not malicious.
Did he apologize and move on? I don't know.
Presumably, there are only two people who know. Miss Watson and The Dude.
But in response to Watson, a great deal of entitled men suddenly acted like some grave injustice was committed merely by Watson pointing out that offense was caused, an injustice that they tried to rectify by "punishing" her with threats of sexualized violence.
Perhaps they were offended by Watson. Should we not critisize her for offending them? Of course, if they were, acting like dicks just offends more people (like you), furthermore, this (the mens reaction) was intended offense, and therefore, I think this should be critisized. However, what I don't think should be critisized, is a) The Dude's actions or b) Miss Watson's actions. They were both unintentional offenses. I do think it's okay to tell Miss Watson that the guy's actions probably weren't intentionally offensive, and that perhaps making a youtube video about it wasn't the best thing to do. After which she would say "hmm yes, perhaps you are right, it was not my intetion to offend", and the whole case could be dropped and we could all get along with our lives doing usefull stuff. Just like she should have said to the guy (which, apparently, she did) "No, sorry not interested, and please stop you're maing me feel unconfortable". After which he would've said: "Sorry miss, didn't mean to cause offfense, I think I'll get off on the next floor, and let you continue your elevator ride in peace". and all would be well. Of course, I am an idealistic dreamer, who thinks people are far to emotional, and this sometimes stands in the way of proper conduct, but wouldn't it be nice if we coudl all act that way?
That's the actual controversy we're talking about. Not that Watson took offense to an elevator proposition, but that her simple statement that she had taken offense instigated a torrent of sexist filth, including by a number of very public figures in movement atheism that should have known better.
Well no, I was talking about your statement that people should be critisized for their actions, apparently regardless of what their actions were. The only factor that seems important in this is the offense felt by the receiving party. I disagreed with this, and that's why I gave my response.
The fact that some uncivilized dickheads intentionally insulted Miss Watson for what was perhaps not the smartest thing to do, is of course worthy of plenty of critisism. However people should all stop acting like they're special little snowflakes. They're not. No one is.
If Miss Watson wanted to raise an issue with this, she probably should've made it more of a hypothetical. Perhaps a lot of "backlash" was caused because people, tribal as they are, saw her video as an attack on one member of a specific group. And we all know what kind of shitstorm can ensue when that happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2012 2:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 239 of 526 (680445)
11-19-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Rahvin
11-19-2012 2:46 PM


Re: Slogans, Privilege and PoCs
This is interesting to me, because in order to know Ms Watson's individual desires or feelings, "elevator guy" would have needed to, as you say, "read her mind."
Not at all. He would only have had to listen to her words. She had already told him what she wanted to do.
He had no way to reasonably know that Ms Watson would feel objectified by a simple proposition to have some coffee.
Sure he would have. All he had to do was recognize that she had just told him what she wanted to do, and he was ignoring it. Now, of course it didn't occur to him that a woman's statements of her own desires was something he had to pay attention to, because that's just not something the community of movement atheism has ever stressed. Indeed, when asked to, they object - often violently. So we can hardly blame the guy for acting as though he was entitled to ignore the desires of women when the entire community was telling him he was expected to ignore the desires of women.
But we can blame those who, like you, know better but are defending that perspective regardless. (Consider yourself blamed.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Rahvin, posted 11-19-2012 2:46 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 240 of 526 (680456)
11-19-2012 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Rahvin
11-19-2012 2:46 PM


empathy does not require mind reading
This is interesting to me, because in order to know Ms Watson's individual desires or feelings, "elevator guy" would have needed to, as you say, "read her mind."
Anybody that claims to find Rebecca Watson 'interesting', should surely know enough about her to infer that sexually propositioning her away from witnesses might make her feel uncomfortable.
He had no way to reasonably know that Ms Watson would feel objectified by a simple proposition to have some coffee.
Paying attention to what Watson talks about, might have clued him in. It should have been clear to him that 'wanna come in for coffee?' is a common signal of sexual intent, and he certainly could reasonably know this, by participating in culture for a few years. Give he could reasonably know that it advertises sexual intent, he might have reasonably concluded that someone who hasn't spoken with him is not going to feel 'complemented' when cornered in a close space out of sight of witnesses, but rather is going to be in the position of having no polite 'outs', and having to essentially deny a strange man from his sexual desires. And that, had he considered his impact carefully, he could reasonably conclude that could make her feel like little more than an object rather than as a person. Her concerns were ignored as if they were irrelevant.
And for those guys that weren't aware of how this might make someone feel - now they've been told. Some of them have not taken kindly to it, and are asserting that they have a right to proposition women as they see fit. Which they more or less do - but the feminists are perfectly entitled to criticise their behaviour too.
...but the standard of polite action that you're holding to requires that people read each other's minds to determine how they would or would not be offended in relatively mundane situations.
Am I alone in being able to tell if a woman is not welcoming my advances? Am I alone in being able to tell that approaching a woman for the first time, in a context where there are no witnesses or easy escapes, is a bad idea?
It doesn't require the capacity to read minds. Just the ability to have empathy for women. I'm not claiming perfection in this regard, but it's hardly quantum electrodynamics to show a bit of restraint. To first talk to the woman while she's in the bar, engage in some flirting and using some empathy in reading the signals, if the two of you are getting along well, and flirting is being reciprocated, then maybe you could say 'Say, how do you fancy coming back to my room for some coffee?'. Not just jump to the not all that plausably deniable social etiquette for sexual propositioning. To avoid talking with her until she's alone and cornered just seems, when it's looked at from the woman's point of view, quite crass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Rahvin, posted 11-19-2012 2:46 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2012 4:40 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 242 by Rahvin, posted 11-19-2012 4:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024