So there was this female speaker on an elevator

[latsot]

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

********. I never claimed in any way to speak for all women.

 

[latsot]

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

Not in this instance no. Because you're saying horribly sexist things and you seem entirely incapable of realising it.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Not in this instance no. Because you're saying horribly sexist things and you seem entirely incapable of realising it.

I have no idea what your gender may be, not having been properly introduced. I assure you that I use the phrase 'Settle, petal' with both men and women.

I happen to be a homosexual male, and I regularly use gender-bent language every day.

My intention of using 'Settle, petal' with you, was merely to get under your skin, which is something I have clearly achieved. It was not intended to be 'sexist' in any shape or form.

 

[3point14]

********. I never claimed in any way to speak for all women.

But you did.

You made a blanket statement that if a woman is not overtly advertising in some way that she's up for casual sex, then on no account should a man approach her for such because there's no way she'd be 'up for it'.

This is you speaking for an entire gender.

It is also incorrect. Lots of women would be interested in casual sex with the right man regardless of how they're dressed or where they are.

Let's put it this way, dressed in baggies and at the supermarket, how many women do you think would say yes to a quick bunk up casually offered by George Clooney, Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp while he was wandering down the frozen food aisle?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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

I get the feeling someone won't be around here long.

 

[PGH]

Seriously? "Petal"?

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated 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?

Someone who doesn't like being called names would be smart not to call other people names over and over.

 

[latsot]

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.

Seriously? THAT is what you took away from what I said? You're lamenting that the women you encounter don't advertise their availability for casual sex? As I said before: boo hoo.

Try to pay attention:

IF someone isn't overtly advertising their desire for casual sex, there's a good chance they aren't interested in it at that particular time. So propositioning them for casual sex out of the blue is likely to be unwelcome and likely to make them uncomfortable. Particularly if it's in an enclosed space. And particularly if they're a woman being propositioned by a man.

Why is it so difficult to understand that certain types of advances in certain situations are unwelcome? What is it about you that feels upset about that? What is it about you that's incapable of understanding that you know what....perhaps if you actually start to concern yourself with what women want, you might find you have more successful relationships with them, casual or otherwise?

 

[Luzz]

Boring.
Such a crying baby.

 

[Tatyana]

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.

Have you been to Essex?

 

[latsot]

Someone who doesn't like being called names would be smart not to call other people names over and over.

I'm not objecting to being called names. I'm objecting to your use of the word 'petal' which is an obviously sexist demeaning term. You're not arguing with my points, you're dismissing them by calling me 'petal'.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'm not equal to a man in this situation. Not even close.

I would tend to agree. Ten of him wouldn't equal half of you. Or your husband, from the sound of it.

So don't settle for equaliy with that loser.

Not all men are this stupid. But as long as there are some who are, I'll always be something "less than."

Quite the reverse -- even if that guy never realizes it (which seems likely).

 

[zooterkin]

I'm only watching all this, bemused, from the sidelines, but that's the bit that seems to jar in all this. Of course, as a commited sideline occupant, I had no idea who Rebecca Watson was 24 hours ago, but observing her Wikipedia page I note that she is American, and am aware that the alleged incident occured in Dublin, so I can't help feeling there may be some cultural confusion at play here

No, that's unlikely to be an issue in this case. Rebecca has been to the UK many times (I've met her here, and seen her at TAM London), and was living there until recently with her husband.

 

[Antiquehunter]

I'm not objecting to being called names. I'm objecting to your use of the word 'petal' which is an obviously sexist demeaning term. You're not arguing with my points, you're dismissing them by calling me 'petal'.

No - that was me, not PGH. And I've already apologized to you for your hastily construed assumption that I was being sexist in calling you 'Petal'. I was merely being provocative, nothing more.

 

[gnome]

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.

But why say that there is no reason why, when reasons were given that are not at all arbitrary?

I'm not mad at this guy, I don't think he was evil or that he should suffer in any way. I don't know him at all. But I definitely think he made a foreseeable error in etiquette. Good manners don't have to be an exact science, or always prevent affront, to be worth knowing about.

 

[cwalner]

No, that's unlikely to be an issue in this case. Rebecca has been to the UK many times (I've met her here, and seen her at TAM London), and was living there until recently with her husband.

I noticed that recently on SGU she is no longer living in London, and now this story, she refers to herself as a single woman. Did I miss some juicy gossip?

 

[PGH]

Seriously? THAT is what you took away from what I said? You're lamenting that the women you encounter don't advertise their availability for casual sex? As I said before: boo hoo.

Try to pay attention:

IF someone isn't overtly advertising their desire for casual sex, there's a good chance they aren't interested in it at that particular time. So propositioning them for casual sex out of the blue is likely to be unwelcome and likely to make them uncomfortable. Particularly if it's in an enclosed space. And particularly if they're a woman being propositioned by a man.

Why is it so difficult to understand that certain types of advances in certain situations are unwelcome? What is it about you that feels upset about that? What is it about you that's incapable of understanding that you know what....perhaps if you actually start to concern yourself with what women want, you might find you have more successful relationships with them, casual or otherwise?

Apparently we both have trouble understanding each other. Because you keep repeating a point ad nauseum that I've explained to you is nonsense. I'll try another tactic...

NO WOMAN ADVERTISES THAT THEY WANT CASUAL SEX.

They don't. It doesn't happen. Those ads on Craigslist? Those are prostitutes. Sorry to crush your dreams.

Yes I know that "certain types of advances in certain situations are unwelcome." And that's the issue. It's arbitrary. Completely dependent on the woman being hit on. It can be "Nice rack, wanna ****?" or "Hi, would you be interested in having drink and chatting sometime?" So for you to act like there are simple and clear cut rules for how to approach a woman is nonsense, it IS you speaking for all women and you are wrong.

Also my interactions with women are fine, I associate exclusively with women honestly and everyone of them would tell you what a gentleman and kind person I am. I would ask that you stop making accusations about my personal life.

Have you been to Essex?

Ok apparently they advertise it in Essex and I need a plane ticket...

 

[latsot]

"You made a blanket statement that if a woman is not overtly advertising in some way that she's up for casual sex, then on no account should a man approach her for such because there's no way she'd be 'up for it'."

No, I didn't say that or anything like it. But to be clear on what I meant:

If a person is not clearly advertising an intention for casual sex, it is often an aggressive act to proposition them on that basis. Especially if it's a woman and especially in a situation such as a lift at 4am. Simply because women have more reason to be scared of men than men have of women.

"It is also incorrect. Lots of women would be interested in casual sex with the right man regardless of how they're dressed or where they are."

Of course they are and I never said or suggested otherwise.

"Let's put it this way, dressed in baggies and at the supermarket, how many women do you think would say yes to a quick bunk up casually offered by George Clooney, Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp while he was wandering down the frozen food aisle?"

I don't have the slightest idea and NEITHER DO YOU. But you are once again entirely missing the point. If they decided to do that, it would be up to them and entirely their decision. You don't get to say "oh, well I have decided that you might **** someone who isn't me, so I get to pester you to **** me".

 

[PGH]

I'm not objecting to being called names. I'm objecting to your use of the word 'petal' which is an obviously sexist demeaning term. You're not arguing with my points, you're dismissing them by calling me 'petal'.

Well "idiot" and "prick" (words you've called me and antiquehunter) may not be sexist but they sure aren't an acceptable form of debate and they are violations of the member agreement. You aren't allowed to call anyone whatever you'd like so long as it's not sexist.

 

[roger]

I don't see how 'prick' isn't sexist.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That question has been asked and answered all over the place. Either you accept the responses or you think Rebecca just said something in anger and frustration. (Or the third option: Rebecca hates men.)

Oh, what were the answers?

~~ Paul