Double standard or context distinction?

[ponderingturtle]

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

The point stands that barring asexuals, people want to be sexualized at least by people they find attractive and in certain ways.

Kind of like is it right to hit on the wait staff? Well their main complaints are being hit on by people they are not interested in, and not being hit on by people they are. So you need to know which category you are in before you ask you are good.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

I propose a skepchick team to prevent any dating, hooking up or canoodling at TAM, it will make them be taken serious right?

 

[Molinaro]

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....

As someone who is half Italian and has been greeted with a standard kiss on one cheek then the other many times, I didn't see it coming when a Czech woman jumped back and said, "Oh no, you don't ever touch the cheek!" I guess air kisses is the norm for her.

 

[gnome]

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.

how and when, and where it's asked, is something people are complaining about.

I have heard very few suggest that people should not ask at all. That is the straw.

 

[tesscaline]

how and when, and where it's asked, is something people are complaining about.

I have heard very few suggest that people should not ask at all. That is the straw.

No, it's not straw if some people have actually held and communicated that opinion. And you, yourself, admit that some people (even if very few) have actually stated such an opinion.

 

[gnome]

It is straw if it's held up as a dominant opinion when only a few express it. If you're not doing that, then no straw.

 

[tesscaline]

It is straw if it's held up as a dominant opinion when only a few express it. If you're not doing that, then no straw.

And was it being held up as a dominant opinion? What was said to make you think that it was? Because that's not how I interpreted things.

 

[ponderingturtle]

how and when, and where it's asked, is something people are complaining about.

I have heard very few suggest that people should not ask at all. That is the straw.

Exactly we have to drive out the awkward people like those with aspergers right?

Remember the whole thing about do not attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence? Well why attribute to sexism what you can attribute to social awkwardness?

 

[Dorian Gray]

If sexualization is like a car, then the calendar is like the woman driving her own car, and being hit on at work is like someone else trying to drive her car without her permission.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If sexualization is like a car, then the calendar is like the woman driving her own car, and being hit on at work is like someone else trying to drive her car without her permission.

And the guy who she wants to have hit on her at work is what? The person she loaned her car to?

 

[gnome]

Exactly we have to drive out the awkward people like those with aspergers right?

Remember the whole thing about do not attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence? Well why attribute to sexism what you can attribute to social awkwardness?

I don't. I will repeat that to me the problem behavior is disinterest in considering feelings of the other person, not being unsuccessful at it.

 

[gnome]

And was it being held up as a dominant opinion? What was said to make you think that it was? Because that's not how I interpreted things.

These are the quotes I was responding to:

People here are complaining about people expressing a sexual interest in them

their main complaints are being hit on by people they are not interested in

The rule is simple, you need to only make sexual advances to women who find you sexually attractive, and then only when they are interested.

"main complaints" seems to imply a dominant opinion.

But there is room for miscommunication... though I sometimes make the same mistake myself... one of the easiest to misinterpret phrases is "people are..."

It can mean so many things--

1 "Almost everyone is"
2 "Most people are"
3 "Enough people are to make it an issue"
4 "Technically some people are"

I often run into someone making an argument in the 1-2 area and then when challenged, backslide it to a 3-4 assertion. It's a slippery way to construct an assertion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't. I will repeat that to me the problem behavior is disinterest in considering feelings of the other person, not being unsuccessful at it.

How do you tell the difference between disinterest and simply being bad at assessing the other person's feelings?

 

[gnome]

How do you tell the difference between disinterest and simply being bad at assessing the other person's feelings?

There isn't always a reliable way. If the person announces their disregard, that could be a clue.

 

[RandFan]

Consider the distinction between using one's sexuality for some purpose on the one hand, and being treated as having no other value aside from being a target for sexual urges on the other.

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying seduction can only be translated to mean treating another as having no other value beyond sex? How does one go about seeking a date without being blamed for targeting someone for sexual urges? And, given that we are sexual creatures is that inherently wrong? It's interesting, what if, and I'm only spit balling here, you ask someone out for coffee? What if you told the person of your desire that you found them interesting? I mean, come on, if you walk up to someone and say "I want to [expletive deleted] your brains out", well yeah. I can see that.

 

[RandFan]

If sexualization is like a car, then the calendar is like the woman driving her own car, and being hit on at work is like someone else trying to drive her car without her permission.

Isn't hitting on someone akin to asking them if they can drive their car? Wouldn't rape be like driving someone's car without their permission?