Interesting, you have a friend who you identify as 95% unsuccessful but who got a lot of sex. Mind you, you don't talk about cold propositions being what was successful. You claim he cold propositioned, but that he was slapped a lot. So basically you know someone who objectified a lot of women and was sometimes rewarded by meeting women who objectify men and they had sex.
Firstly, thanks for replying. There is indeed a strong bias against your position (not you as a person) here, so I can more than understand if you ignore most posts disagreeing with you.
As for the guy I mentioned, he was - as he told it - closer to 20% succesful. Mind you, this was probably because after a few tries he got a feel for which women might be amenable. The 95% unsuccesful was my best guess at average lack of success for a random person.
You say this falls under "objectifying" women; caring only about their looks, maybe posture and attitude, but not being bothered about their skills, hobbies, goals, beliefs, or philosophies. Do I understand correctly that you find attraction based on externalities a bad thing? Or is it acting on that attraction that is bad? I'd be interested to finally understand the reasoning behind why objectification is bad per se, other than that some people don't want it directed at them. After all, in the vast majority of interactions with people, we don't care about their views or philosophies, life goals or hobbies. I don't know what life goals my boss has, I don't care what philosophies my cashier has. All fine with you, I presume, but problematic if sexual attraction is added? Or only so if the sexual attraction is then expressed?
Are you condoning or promoting your friend's behavior?
Certainly condone. I don't judge other people's sexual activities and this falls under that general rule. I do have the personal impression, not supported by much evidence, that if people felt more free to act on random attraction or lust, less constrained by prudery, the world would be a somewhat happier place. As in the attitude towards sex taken in Iain Banks' the Culture. Or bonobos.
I'll speak as someone who has a lot of experience in casual sex. I met many women and in the space of one nights time we concluded our relationships. In each and every case there was a get to know you phase, that occurred in public.
I get the impression that having a "get to know you phase" is what distinguishes it from objectification in your view? Fair enough, although I would not see it as a significant difference myself. It's not as if having shared hobbies or life goals was going to matter much, in that context.
As to the quoted bit, that's nice. Since you aren't supporting any of it with argument I'm going to ignore it. However if you would like to offer an argument I'll read it. I may even respond. I will simply state that your impression of me is inaccurate. However there is a strong bias against me here so I am hardly surprised.
Firstly, you say that my impression of you is inaccurate. I haven't talked about my impression of you, which is actually quite positive. I've only talked about my impression of what you wrote there, which is not so positive.
I think it is a reasonable assumption that a request back to a hotel room at 4am coming from a stranger is pretty well guaranteed to get shot down.
I disagreed with the estimation of those odds previously. I'm sticking with 95% for now. The real issue however is what Elevator Guy thought his chances were, since that's what the rest of your reasoning is based on. You imply he must have been sure he didn't have a chance, based on your estimate of how often such an offer would be accepted.
How often do people ask for something when they're sure they're not going to get what they ask for? Most of us only ask for something, especially from a stranger, when we feel there's a good chance of a yes. Being rejected after all, feels unpleasant. Some, like the guy I mentioned, are sufficiently inured to that feeling that they'll take a slimmer chance, but those people are very rare indeed. I'd say that in 99% of situations (personal estimate, dispute if you like) people only ask if they think they have better than even odds of getting what they ask for. Given that Elevator Guy asked, I think that's strong evidence that he did
not think his offer was going to almost certainly be rejected.
Your counterevidence is based on your personal estimate of his chances, which you then assume he shares. Pretty thin, if you ask me.
So to make that offer, you can't really be thinking of the other person as a person, you have to be seeing them as an opportunity, or fantasy enabler.
Here you lose me entirely. A person who you allegedly know is going to say no, is an opportunity? For what? For denying you conversation? For denying you sex? Seeing someone as a "fantasy enabler" is equally puzzling. What kind of fantasy might that be and how would they enable it? Asking someone to go to your room and have coffee and getting shot down is enabling some person's fantasy? I cannot begin to imagine the type of fantasy life that would make this a feasible theory.
This is the step where I find it hard to see anything except rationalisation. It appears to be simply random speculation about his motives, attributing specific motives so bizarre that I for one, cannot imagine how they might work.
If you approached that situation seeing them as a person you'd just be quiet, or perhaps say, "I really liked your talk." and make no further invite, though again at 4am, in an elevator, just a bad place to be striking up a conversation.
I would say 4AM in an elevator after a conference and then drinks, is an excellent time to strike up a conversation. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it and I've gathered it's not uncommon after TAM conferences to later have private talks in rooms with strangers. I think what you're trying to say is that it's a bad place to strike up a conversation if you're a MAN and addressing a WOMAN you don't know, because SEX. Would you say it's a problem in any other configuration of genders?
