Double standard or context distinction?

[gnome]

The idea that there can be a universally understood code to me flies in the face of the evidence. Within the same society there can be many different cultures that have different codes of behaviour.

Even with a universal interaction - greeting someone - it can can vary from something like a handshake not being appropriate to kissing being appropriate (and yes even in non-social situations). There are simply no universals, all you can do is to hope that people are tolerant of different behaviours and don't take things the wrong way....

I think this is a fallacy of perfect solution. You can also learn, within various contexts and cultures, what TENDS to be taken the wrong way. I don't see how this is invalid or useless information.

 

[Darat]

I think this is a fallacy of perfect solution. You can also learn, within various contexts and cultures, what TENDS to be taken the wrong way. I don't see how this is invalid or useless information.

It's actually the opposite! It is recognising that there can't be a universal standard and what a solution to that is i.e. being tolerant of people who have different standards and/or expectations of appropriate behaviour to your own. So if you are a male from a culture in which males do not kiss when meeting each other it is much easier to be tolerant if you are kissed by a male from a society that does kiss, rather then swinging a right-hook at them! (And of course the opposite is true.)

The problems are usually caused when someone holds the belief that their standards are the correct/right standards and anyone who does not follow them are somehow at fault.

And of course that does not mean that you can't try and learn what are the "standards" in a particular culture, beyond being interesting of itself it can facilitate communication so often has a very real upside.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

And of course that does not mean that you can't try and learn what are the "standards" in a particular culture, beyond being interesting of itself it can facilitate communication so often has a very real upside.

If one was to study "skepchick" culture from the group's past behaviour and marketing output, what do you think might be the standards considered acceptable to skepchicks by an outside observer?

 

[blauregen]

See people want to be sexualized by the people they want to have sex with, but not by the people they do not.

Preferably at a time when they are in the mood for sex and in a manner matching their own sexual fantasies about said people.

 

[gnome]

If one was to study "skepchick" culture from the group's past behaviour and marketing output, what do you think might be the standards considered acceptable to skepchicks by an outside observer?

Why beat around the bush? Tell us what standards for personal interaction YOU draw from the "skepchick culture" and "Past behavior"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The idea that there can be a universally understood code to me flies in the face of the evidence. Within the same society there can be many different cultures that have different codes of behaviour.

Even with a universal interaction - greeting someone - it can can vary from something like a handshake not being appropriate to kissing being appropriate (and yes even in non-social situations). There are simply no universals, all you can do is to hope that people are tolerant of different behaviours and don't take things the wrong way....

So considering the circumstances, perhaps an assumption is not unreasonable that a single female leaving a hotel bar at 4am is liberated enough to be able to tolerate a polite come on. Not to say the guy should expect a positive result, or should feel the right to ask more crudely, but it's kind of mixed singles to be affronted by a polite inquiry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think this is a fallacy of perfect solution. You can also learn, within various contexts and cultures, what TENDS to be taken the wrong way. I don't see how this is invalid or useless information.

I didn't interpret Darat's statement to contradict what you are saying here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If one was to study "skepchick" culture from the group's past behaviour and marketing output, what do you think might be the standards considered acceptable to skepchicks by an outside observer?

Yes, that too.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why beat around the bush? Tell us what standards for personal interaction YOU draw from the "skepchick culture" and "Past behavior"?

Not speaking for Ivor, but for myself, I wouldn't expect skepchick culture to be affronted by being politely propositioned. The culture does not say, for example, "ask for my father's permission before inviting me to take a chaperoned walk with you or sit with you on the porch swing to sip ice tea."

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why beat around the bush? Tell us what standards for personal interaction YOU draw from the "skepchick culture" and "Past behavior"?

I don't subscribe to that culture, but a single phrase which summarises what I think "skepchick" culture is about with respect to casual sex would be "up for it".

ETA: Having said that, I don't think the majority of scepchicks are actually "up for it", but just like the extra attention displaying such labels brings.

 

[gnome]

Again dismissing a good portion of the context. I don't perceive an objection to the idea of offering casual sex to someone who may or may not be attracted--just the circumstances under which that is offered. Claiming that navigating questions of circumstance is incomprehensible across the board seems like a stubborn pretense.

 

[marplots]

Again dismissing a good portion of the context. I don't perceive an objection to the idea of offering casual sex to someone who may or may not be attracted--just the circumstances under which that is offered. Claiming that navigating questions of circumstance is incomprehensible across the board seems like a stubborn pretense.

It doesn't have to be incomprehensible to have various degrees of skill or understanding. I can know the basics of hailing a cab in New York and still fail at it because I am not versed in the nuances. The evidence for this is the incident itself -- as long as you do not ascribe malevolent intent but grant inept instead.

The variety of opinions and stances in this thread demonstrates the matter is far from clear or standard. The bias may be on the receiving end -- the assumption that someone knows exactly what they are doing and chooses to act the cad.

 

[Darat]

But who has made such a claim?
ETA: That was meant to quote Gnome's claim

 

[gnome]

But who has made such a claim?
ETA: That was meant to quote Gnome's claim

I have taken most of the comments along the lines of "well how am I supposed to know what the rules are?" to be claiming the questions of circumstance to be incomprehensible.

 

[gnome]

It doesn't have to be incomprehensible to have various degrees of skill or understanding. I can know the basics of hailing a cab in New York and still fail at it because I am not versed in the nuances. The evidence for this is the incident itself -- as long as you do not ascribe malevolent intent but grant inept instead.

The variety of opinions and stances in this thread demonstrates the matter is far from clear or standard. The bias may be on the receiving end -- the assumption that someone knows exactly what they are doing and chooses to act the cad.

I do not ascribe malevolent intent at all.

However, the opinions and stances, once you eliminate misunderstandings of claims, or those made to satire the opinions of the other side, aren't so varied. There is some difference but there's enough to form a body of common sense from.

There is a middle here between "everyone should know this automatically" and "this is too arbitrary to expect anyone to consider" -- my main point is that middle exists.

 

[marplots]

I do not ascribe malevolent intent at all.

However, the opinions and stances, once you eliminate misunderstandings of claims, or those made to satire the opinions of the other side, aren't so varied. There is some difference but there's enough to form a body of common sense from.

There is a middle here between "everyone should know this automatically" and "this is too arbitrary to expect anyone to consider" -- my main point is that middle exists.

True, and the wise operator leans toward being more circumspect. I think the culture in the US has changed (at least during my lifetime) to reflect different mores. A few decades ago, I wouldn't have thought about my behavior around children -- now I am aware that others may mistake friendliness for something sinister. The same holds true for adult females -- I am married and careful not to appear other than faithful.

I do, however, remember a time when I was "playing the game." I recall I made a few honest mistakes, perhaps willful miscommunications that sprang more from hope than any real interest shown by the other party. I never became adroit. I got married instead.

I still think false pattern-forming will happen and it may be lust driven. In some respects, context is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think it is an unfair burden to have to rebuff the ham handed. Clarity is a friend here. To be fair, there are two people who get insulted (and thus "harmed"). The first is the female who feels accosted and unsafe. The second is the man who is summarily rejected as unfit, coarse, or dangerous. (The genders can be flipped in that.) What a mess.

 

[Darat]

I have taken most of the comments along the lines of "well how am I supposed to know what the rules are?" to be claiming the questions of circumstance to be incomprehensible.

I think you are not understanding at least my comments, as I stated above learning different culturally appropriate behavior can be very good.

 

[gnome]

I think you are not understanding at least my comments, as I stated above learning different culturally appropriate behavior can be very good.

That's the thing with long threads, I can't remember who said what--but from what you say here I think we're agreed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The second sentence may be accurate, but the first sentence is full of straw. Has anyone proposed that being mistaken about someone's sexual interest is morally wrong (besides sarcastically)? I'd like to see a quote.

The first is accurate too. People here are complaining about people expressing a sexual interest in them, and there is no way barring telepathy to know if the person you are interested in is interested in you. So you have to ask, and yet this asking is something people complain about.

 

[Molinaro]

What goes on in people's heads is their business. What they think is not important. How they act is.

Someone could be thinking that they want to rape me, murder me slowly, eat the tender bits and bury the rest in the desert. As long as I am never made aware of that, if they give no hint of it and if they never, ever, ever even remotely act on that thought, it's really none of my business. I don't care.

But if they say "Nice tits, I'd like to serve them with some fava beans." or "Hey, you wanna get into my windowless van?" then I have a problem with it.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting. Would you like to discuss this some more over coffee?