So there was this female speaker on an elevator

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'll bet you a tenner that somewhere in the world is a woman who, at a conference, was propositioned by a stranger in an elevator, accepted and had a thoroughly good time.

Do you have her number by chance?

 

[3point14]

Oh grow up. I never once pretended to speak for all women everywhere. I tried to explain one of the reasons why some women might feel uncomfortable in such a position/

I think you'd better read what you said again:

It is really *really* simple. If she's not obviously advertising casual sex (for example, by being on a casual sex forum of some kind) don't act like she might want casual sex.

I think my interpretation is accurate. I've known of many and been privileged to meet one or two women in the most innocuous of circumstances who happily engaged in casual sex.

 

[fls]

It's tricky, and you have to understand the labelling.


Creep = awkward sexual advance from someone found unattractive
Player = confident sexual advance from someone found unattractive

Endearing = awkward sexual advance from someone found attractive
Hot = confident sexual advance from someone found attractive.


This works for both hetero and homo and for the staff and the distaff. The labelling may shift slightly, but 'creep' is in the eye of the beholder.

The trick is knowing into which category the prospective mate puts you. If you make a mistake because you're not psychic, you risk being labelled a creep or a player. It's a problem. As far as I can see, the men that get laid most (or rather with the most women) are men that don't care about being thought of as a creep or a player.

No, I have no idea how to work it out either.

That's it, of course. And while I have no trouble recognizing which category someone would fall into, if I try to articulate it to someone else a priori (so they know whether to make a move) and they fail to understand my contradictory and/or indistinguishable categories (it's the difference between sexual attraction and sexual objectification, damnit), I will be forced to conclude that their misogyny interferes with whether they "get it".

Linda

 

[PGH]

Just in case people think I'm a bit too strident, I'd like to point out that I'm letting this go. I can recognize futility.

You have a funny way of letting things go. You know, pointing them out and then tossing out insults. Here's a better example of letting things go:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A different point of view for thought:

It's not my thing currently and the HIV pandemic put a damper on the activity but when I was younger, casual sex was very common. Being a feminist did not mean men disgusted you, it meant women who liked sex too were OK. A woman who liked sex should not be considered a slut.

One's standards could still be high and the creep in the elevator no doubt wouldn't be successful very often. But if one wants to be liberated, why should a proposition be offensive? It seems to me such affrontedness is the opposite of liberated.

Just sayin.....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I think my interpretation is accurate. I've known of many and been privileged to meet one or two women in the most innocuous of circumstances who happily engaged in casual sex.

Have we met?

 

[Seismosaurus]

You know what I think is sad? That you didn't actually get what Rebecca Watson was trying to say. The take-away you get should should really be:

"Guys - be careful of how you hit on women, because some ways make us feel uncomfortable or even scared"​

In other words, display a little bit of social awareness as to how your actions may appear in context and a little bit of empathy as to the feelings your actions might invoke in the other person.

What I don't get is how so many people don't get that.

Oh I get it. But as I said in later posts, the problem is that the "some ways" differ hugely from person to person, they often seem to include "some men are inherently creepy and should never approach me", and yet it's always universally the man's fault for breaking these guidelines.

Look at this example. Apparently the fellow thought his approach was reasonable, and she didn't. Conclusion? She was right and he was wrong, obviously. No real reason why, no real idea of exactly what he did wrong, it's just assumed that he obviously did something wrong and that he should have known this in advance, somehow. It's like being asked to play a game whose rules are set by the other player, are vague at best, and differ according to who you are playing - but it's always your fault if you break them.

The only message to take from that is it's a dumb game so stop playing it.

 

[latsot]

"As to your "really simple" example you state that unless a woman is on an internet forum actively looking for casual sex don't proposition them for it. You do know that casual sex was around before the internet correct?"

Of course. You fail at reading comprehension because I never mentioned the Internet. I said 'forum', by which I meant place in which people can advertise their availability. This was pretty clear from the context if you'd bothered to read it.

"Women do not advertise that they want casual sex for the most part. They just wait for a man they find appealing to make a move. Therefore we are the ones who have to go around to women on a regular basis to see if sexual gratification can be achieved."

And you really don't see where your attitude might be flawed?

"If we left it to you ladies cockroaches would be the ones having this debate."

I'm not, as it happens, female. It's interesting that you assume so. But you know what? Women are just as interested in sex as men. If you've found otherwise, I suggest this says more about your attitude and your approach than about women.

"And clearly you know very little about casual sex since you recommend that people who want to engage in it should get to know each other better first. Maybe they should go on a few dates before having casual sex"

Cut out the name-calling, please and thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

I'm saying that if people advertise in one way or another their availability for casual sex, then they indeed want you to barge up to them and ask them if they'd like to go to your room. If they DON'T advertise any such thing then they almost certainly DON'T want you to do that.

This has nothing to do with poor men not managing to get their end away on a single occasion and *everything* to do with women not being unduly pressured.

But there's a happy coincidence: if you actually care about a person and make an effort to get to know them, your chances of sex go through the roof! Everyone wins, right?

Casual sex is perfectly fine. Approaching a random woman who has not indicated in any way that she's interested in casual sex is not fine.

 

[Wudang]

You know what I think is sad? That you didn't actually get what Rebecca Watson was trying to say. The take-away you get should should really be:

"Guys - be careful of how you hit on women, because some ways make us feel uncomfortable or even scared"​

In other words, display a little bit of social awareness as to how your actions may appear in context and a little bit of empathy as to the feelings your actions might invoke in the other person.

What I don't get is how so many people don't get that.

Having read so much on this, it's a shame that what seems to have started as (apparently) a friendly tip; and in fact possibly demonstrating an awareness that the person giving offense may simply have been uninformed, has become something of a bandwagon and the message has changed from "you don't get it, here's a clue" to "you don't get it, you're the enemy".

 

[latsot]

I think you'd better read what you said again:



I think my interpretation is accurate. I've known of many and been privileged to meet one or two women in the most innocuous of circumstances who happily engaged in casual sex.

I think you'd better read what I said again. I said *if* people don't advertise casual sex then they probably don't want it. And no part of that suggested I speak for all women.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"As to your "really simple" example you state that unless a woman is on an internet forum actively looking for casual sex don't proposition them for it. You do know that casual sex was around before the internet correct?"
.....

[sidetrack] Perhaps the forum posting code page would interest you? Using the quote function makes it easier to read a post with multiple quotes. [/sidetrack]

BTW,

 

[Tatyana]

I personally think no one should have said anything about the incident in public.

If she had dealt with it at the time with the man it would have been appropriate.

Some people are just a bit socially awkward and say silly things, it isn't a flipping crime against humanity or even feminism.

All of this blogging and thread is just ridiculous.

I also personally think that there are some weird issues with a battle of the sexes in the US that get really out of hand.

 

[PGH]

Delete

 

[bookitty]

You have a funny way of letting things go. You know, pointing them out and then tossing out insults. Here's a better example of letting things go:

You know, there really just isn't a good sarcasm/this is a joke smilie.

 

[3point14]

I think you'd better read what I said again. I said *if* people don't advertise casual sex then they probably don't want it. And no part of that suggested I speak for all women.

I've bolded the word that you've just introduced to make your statement more reasonable.

 

[PGH]

You know, there really just isn't a good sarcasm/this is a joke smilie.

There really isn't and I'd like to apologize for my snarky response.

 

[Antiquehunter]

There really isn't and I'd like to apologize for my snarky response.

^^Sexist.

 

[latsot]

Settle, petal...

It is entirely possible that Rusty is merely tweaking the nose of (overly sensitive) feminists everywhere...

Seriously? "Petal"?

Edited by LashL: 

Removed inappropriate content.

You've already decided that feminists are over sensitive and dismiss any arguments to the contrary as being put forward by a 'petal'.

Do you *really* not see why your attitude is horribly wrong?

 

[PGH]

"As to your "really simple" example you state that unless a woman is on an internet forum actively looking for casual sex don't proposition them for it. You do know that casual sex was around before the internet correct?"

Of course. You fail at reading comprehension because I never mentioned the Internet. I said 'forum', by which I meant place in which people can advertise their availability. This was pretty clear from the context if you'd bothered to read it.

"Women do not advertise that they want casual sex for the most part. They just wait for a man they find appealing to make a move. Therefore we are the ones who have to go around to women on a regular basis to see if sexual gratification can be achieved."

And you really don't see where your attitude might be flawed?

"If we left it to you ladies cockroaches would be the ones having this debate."

I'm not, as it happens, female. It's interesting that you assume so. But you know what? Women are just as interested in sex as men. If you've found otherwise, I suggest this says more about your attitude and your approach than about women.

"And clearly you know very little about casual sex since you recommend that people who want to engage in it should get to know each other better first. Maybe they should go on a few dates before having casual sex"

No, you idiot. I'm saying that if people advertise in one way or another their availability for casual sex, then they indeed want you to barge up to them and ask them if they'd like to go to your room. If they DON'T advertise any such thing then they almost certainly DON'T want you to do that.

This has nothing to do with poor men not managing to get their end away on a single occasion and *everything* to do with women not being unduly pressured.

But there's a happy coincidence: if you actually care about a person and make an effort to get to know them, your chances of sex go through the roof! Everyone wins, right?

Casual sex is perfectly fine. Approaching a random woman who has not indicated in any way that she's interested in casual sex is not fine.

I read everything you wrote just fine. I'm not an idiot.

I also know that women don't walk around advertising that they want casual sex. Please let me know of this magical place where that happens. But I'm a man, what do I know. Ladies? If I might ask have you ever gone out looking for casual sex and made that fact clear to all the men in the room? OR did you happen to be out, end up talking to a guy you were incredibly attracted to and things just happened?

Has a woman here or anywhere ever indicated to a guy that she was interested in casual sex BEFORE any conversation took place? Please let me know what that signal looks like.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Do you *really* not see why your attitude is horribly wrong?

Do you really not see when I'm pulling someone's leg?