Now calm down, Amanda… this one isn’t about you…specifically…or is it?1
Ken blogged today about relationship gripes in response to some posts of Dizzy’s… I agree with him but, instead of just letting you read his post, I’m going to say what he said in a slightly different way2… one that will probably piss off more people3.
After writing quite a bit I realized that I hadn’t adequately narrowed my scope… so what follows is long, poorly organized, and has more of a ranty tone than I was hoping for. You may not even want to read it… I certainly don’t vouch for any of my opinions below.
The basic thesis is this: that men cannot and should not be expected to read minds or decypher hints. Ken runs down the logic quite well — in short, the ‘correct’ interpretation, the one that the speaker intends the listener to perform, is not the only reasonable or logical path that one can take from the spoken words to a conclusion and, since there are decisions to be made in the translation, some people are bound to come up with the incorrect answer.
The fact that it can be a crap-shoot to figure out what, precisely, a woman means does not stop them from expecting you to tune in, though. Granted, once you get to know a person you are able to see through to the actual message much more easily, but only because you can more accurately put yourself in their shoes and guess with a higher degree of accuracy their motivations.
My problem is not just with the expectation but also with the explanation. The oft-stated reason, as Ken points out, is that they don’t want to hurt our feelings. This may be true, but I believe that this fact and the actual reason share a joint cause4.
The suggested reason, I feel, is actually a symptom of the underlying cause: that women a) don’t want to look bad and b) actually like the attention. They don’t want to look mean. They don’t want to scare off guys that they’re actually interested in who might not want that same sort of treatment. But, in addition, girls know that if they use a direct answer that the guy will stop. He will quit flirting, quit pursuing… and what most girls really want is to be pursued by as many men as possible while only actually being asked out by the ones they actually like. Giving clear, concise answers (instead of merely hinting at rejection) allows this aim to be more readily accomplished… it allows them to prolong the attention from one particular guy.
If you think I’m wrong, you probably have a counter example in mind… maybe a girl you know… or maybe you. Think of this girl in the following situation: she is being hit on buy a girl that she is not interested in. More than being not interested in him, though, he creeps her out. Not in an “I fear for my safety” sort of way… but in an “I do not want this person to speak to me any more than is neccessary for my own survival” sort of way. Does the girl in your example give ambiguous hints that could be misinterpreted as situational, undecided, or worse… coy and interested? Or does she state clearly (however nicely) that she is not interested? How clearly does she express the fact that she is not now, nor will she ever be, interested in the guy? Is she concerned about his feelings?
Now, I’m not saying that when asked out, a disinterested woman should say “No. I do not want to go out with you now or in the future because I do not find you adequately attractive and, moreover, you are not cool enough to hang out with me and my friends.” But what about a simple “No, thanks.” or “Sorry, I’m not really interested in you in that way.”
I will grant that there are probably some women who even in the creeped-out situation above, would give very subtle hints, hoping not to disappoint the guy. This does not make them big people, really, it makes them small people. Wanting to spare themselves the guilt at the cost of prolonged hope and time expenditure of the guy who has no chance of winning.
This is, of course, in the event that the woman actually verbalizes her hints.
It seems that there is a non-trivial number of instances where a guy is supposed to “get the hint” that a girl has been avoiding him (etc). This seems patently clear to the girl, who has the benefit of knowing a) what she, herslef, is thinking5 and b) enough about her own schedule to realize when something ceases to be unlucky happenstance and begins to become “avoidance.” Unfortunately, the guy is very rarely so well informed.
Instead it seems like this is a ploy to effect the desired result (rejection) while avoiding the consequence (guilt). Of course this method, when not picked up on immediately by the guy, turns out to be more hurtful. He’s chasing, he’s playing the game, he’s had a few bad breaks but he persists6 and then, some amount of time later, realizes that the whole thing is for naught because she was never interested to begin with.
It is at this point that he feels not only the pain of the initial rejection but also the embarrassment of knowing that many of his past attempts were not only additional rejections but also purposefully “soft”… which will play quite nicely with a feeling of inadequacy or inferiority… that the girl thought she was “too good” for him. Which, in many cases, is dead on… if you do not feel like you’re too good for someone but are still not interested, do you let them down easy through hints and avoidance… or do you say something like “I don’t think it will work because ______.”
So there are far, far more issues associated with this “hinting” behavior than just “wanting to be nice” and expecting too much out of men. Maybe I need to revisit this topic after Moot Court Briefs are due.
No, it’s really not
This is, I’ve been taught, what lawyers do.
And this is what I do
This is a broad generality… please heed all applicable disclaimers
Though I realize that this is not always the case
Don’t women like to say that they like a persistent guy? Oh, but not too persistent… know when to stop! Wha?
September 28th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
“The suggested reason, I feel, is actually a symptom of the underlying cause: that women a) don’t want to look bad and b) actually like the attention….”
Two points for Pete… you hit that one dead on. Every woman I know, myself included, falls into the category of “attention whore” whether she’ll admit it or not.
And just fyi… that also plays a large part in why we’re so catty towards each other.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
There’s another factor too, and I responded to Ken’s post as well because I actually read and somewhat like CDL, which Dizzy has been ranting at (love his post about wanting to do her, btw, love it).
Here’s the thing. Say a guy’s flirting and all, but he’s kind of in that second level of creepiness you mentioned. The girl says “you know, I’m just really not interested in you in that way.” And she is IMMEDIATELY dubbed insane. “I was just being nice” he whines to his friends, “we were just talking and suddenly she’s all ‘I don’t like you in that way’ what a freak! As if I would go out with HER!”
Not that girls don’t do the same things, I suppose.
It just seems very presumptious to me, to do something along the lines you’re advocating. What if YOU’re misreading HIS signals? (Or vice versa, I would never claim to be knowledgable on the male viewpoint.)
Anyway, my two cents at aa after several hours of moot courting…take it as you will!
~K
September 28th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Oh yeah, also, about that whole:
“The fact that it can be a crap-shoot to figure out what, precisely, a woman means does not stop them from expecting you to tune in, though.”
Is very, very true. But that’s partly because women spend a goodly percentage of their day trying to figure out what’s going on in various guys’ heads. We just assume you’re doing the same and should eventually stumble onto the right track. The fact that said track is not marked in any way, shape, or form from any other metaphorical path is of absolutely no consequence.
Ok, I’m really done now.
~K
September 29th, 2006 at 3:35 am
I am morbidly fascinated by this discussion primarily because I feel like I’m reading a magazine from the 1950s. Part of me wants to wade full-on into this debate, but I’ll just leave a short comment instead:
Guys also do this “hinting” kind of thing. Sure, some men don’t - but some women don’t, also. But almost everyone of every gender is guilty of having “hinted” at one point or another for the simple sake of social lubricant.
“Only a sadistic scoundrel - or a fool - tells the bald truth on social occasions.” -L.L.
I’m still learning, myself.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Uh…. Pete, I’m sensing that there’s a typo here: “Think of this girl in the following situation: she is being hit on buy a girl that she is not interested in.”
Interesting ideas… I can see where you’re coming from!
September 30th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Ok, LOOK. I think that a man who wants to hit on a woman should be EXPECTED to figure out if his advances are likely to be well-received. It’s not brain surgery. It’s a simple social skill. If, after doing his HONEST BEST, he has misread the situation, well, that’s what happens and I won’t fault him. But men who wander the world, asking every attractive vagina if they can take it home, are making the world too difficult for women. And I know because I am a woman.
Oh, and the creepy guy who I would supposedly shut down right away? No, I’m LESS likely to be direct with him because I know that’s the type who’s going to let the air out of my tires. I avoid this type like crazy, but I would NEVER say, “Oh, and I’m just not interested in you.” Because, like Kristina said, that just gives them a gripe.
And the attention that I supposedly love? “Hello Vagina, can I use you and leave?” Is not attention that anyone wants. If a girl manages to pretend it’s not happening, or play it off as fun, that’s just because she’s trying to make it less awkward for everyone else. Think about the last time you watched a guy hit on a girl everyone knew didn’t want him. She pretended it wasn’t happening, didn’t she? If he was horrible, she just went home early. Why should she have to do that?
Again, if you were being hit on by a gay man every time you left the house, I think you would see the situation differently. You would expect the gay men to figure out who would be receptive to them. And you would probably wonder what you did to make them think it was ok. Oh, and then if you got the, “He loves all the attention” from outsiders who just see you trying to pretend the attention isn’t happening, you’d be pissed.
And like Kristina said, I DO NOT WANT TO DO MOOT COURT. That is all, thank you
September 30th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
“It’s not brain surgery. It’s a simple social skill.”
So is being a clear communicator, which, if a person’s “hints” are often not picked up by men, they are not.
“No, I’m LESS likely to be direct with him because I know that’s the type who’s going to let the air out of my tires.”
That’s an odd sort of malice to ascribe to someone whose social skills are lacking. Do you think when he eventually finds out that you were never interested that he won’t do the same thing?
“And the attention that I supposedly love? “Hello Vagina, can I use you and leave?” Is not attention that anyone wants.”
That’s quite a strawman. Are you saying you don’t like attention, or just pointing to one sort of attention that you don’t like? (Because I think we can all agree that women generally don’t likes all attention).
“Again, if you were being hit on by a gay man every time you left the house, I think you would see the situation differently. You would expect the gay men to figure out who would be receptive to them. And you would probably wonder what you did to make them think it was ok. Oh, and then if you got the, “He loves all the attention” from outsiders who just see you trying to pretend the attention isn’t happening, you’d be pissed.”
If you are a lesbian, this argument has some merit. If you are not, then this argument is outrageously weak. Guys of a certain type are being expected to know, based on your past experiences with other guys (who they probably find different from them in innumerable ways) which quality of that particular guy you objected to and then being expected to know whether or not they are the same? This is not as simple as “Dizzy doesn’t like girls”.
Further, in my life I have been hit on by at least three gay men. I informed each of them that I was flattered, but that I was not gay. I appreciated the attention, but I was not about to jump down their throats for not picking up the fact that I was straight.
In conclusion, I also do not want to finish writing my brief.
September 30th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Dude, I don’t get the lesbian thing. I’m saying: What if every time you left the house, someone who has NO REASON to believe you will sleep with him, other than the fact that you have a penis, tries to get you to do something you do not want to do? Is that really a hazard you would expect to exist? Would you be able to function with all the fallout and complications? Would you simply explain, nicely, to everyone who gave any indication of interest, that you will not be sleeping with them? Is it really reasonable to expect you to have to deal with that? Or could we simply expect the guys to learn “Hmmm… penis DOES NOT EQUAL possible sexual partner. Must look for something more….”
As for my not being direct enough? Good lord, man, a mack truck couldn’t stop some of these guys. After one particularly bad night, my roomate came out of his room and said, “I do not EVER want to be you…” (And no, this isn’t even the night of the guy who tried to sleep in my hallway because I hadn’t sufficiently explained why I wouldn’t go to his room and screw him, or let him into my apartment after he FOLLOWED ME HOME). Do you want to mess with that? Really? You have no idea how much fun it is to deal with the sexual urges of the socially-unskilled.
And I’m so taking a dive on this whole moot court thing.
September 30th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Ps - I had to learn to take hints too. I had to learn that “I’m too drunk to drive, can I stay on your couch,” means they think I have agreed to sex. That “Oh, let me get the next round,” means I have agreed to sex. That “Let me walk you home, it’s dangerous out there,” means I have agreed to sex. “Let’s get together and study for that final.” “Well, we’ve been talking ina public place for about 20 minutes now.” “My girflfriend is out of town this weekend.” And so on and so forth. THEN I had to learn that a guy who did NOT buy me a drink, talked to me in a group setting, and who I refused to be alone with can STILL assume he’s getting some because “You’red older. And divorced. So I just assumed…” So I’m desperate or something? Y’all have put me through such a good time. I really don’t think the boys should miss out on all the fun that is learning to read other’s subtle social cues…
And yeah, gotta love that moot court.
September 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that those things are “hints” and not “bad assumptions”…
…are you saying that the guys were right to expect you to pick up on those hints or that their behavior was somehow acceptable? Or are you saying they should’ve been more direct and clear?
September 30th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Neither. I’m saying I am expected to pick up on indirect hints, and BLAMED when I do not “She was asking for it.” “She was into me, I don’t know what happened.” “She’s a tease.” “She’s a bitch.” “She’s a whore.” “She’s a lesbian.” But men are supposed to remain free to “make an offer” to anyone in the room? And it’s MY job to turn it down, directly. Not try to forestall any awkwardness by communicating, as best I can, “I am not sexually available to you.”
Look, it would not be polite for me to invite myself to dinner at a stranger’s house if I have no reason to think my presence is welcome, right? And NO ONE thinks it’s unreasonable to expect me to learn the subtle social cues that indicate someone would like to be my friend and hang out, in other words, GROW UP, right?
If I went to a bar and said, “Hey, can I come over for dinner at your house tomorrow,” to every single nice-looking person there, you’d think I was crazy. But somehow it’s ok for a guy to say, “Hey, have sex with me tonight,” to everyonen he sees. And his behavior is FINE? It’s the GIRL”S job to say, “No, but thanks for asking?”
We expect people to pick up on the social cues that indicate that a friendship could be developed. No one has died from having to learn to take a “hint” that the other person does not want to be frirends. And no one involved in this scenario is required to spell it out, “Hi, I want to be your friend.” “Well, I think I have enough friends, so I won’t be returning your calls.”
All I’m saying is, we should expect the same with the person who wants to have sex. That he should learn how to make the overture properly, to someone who will be receptive. And that is NOT unreasonable.
September 30th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
You’re drifting so far off topic that we are hardly even discussing the same thing any more.
Nothing in this post addresses whether or not a guy propositioning everyone in a bar is “fine.” I haven’t said or implied that it was.
“That he should learn how to make the overture properly, to someone who will be receptive.”
…so now you’re expecting guys to know who would or wouldn’t be interested? So, in theory, women should have to do nothing? Men should assume the responsibility of knowing who will have sex with them and how precisely to ask for it?
September 30th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Yes. That IS what I’m saying. “Men should assume the responsibility of knowing who will have sex with them and how precisely to ask for it.”
I don’t think it’s brain surgery. We expect similar things of people in similar situations, ie, making friends. It is NOT reasonable to put the burden on the WOMAN to field offers from every man, regardless of whether or not she has signalled that she is available. And it is not reasonable to expect the woman to say, “I don’t want to sleep with you” to everyone who indicates interest. (Especially if it’s just open season on her because she’s a woman)
Are men going to mess up? Yes. But since the man wants the sex, HE should have to deal with the embarassment of not knowing, precisely, how his advances will be recieved. EXACTLY the way I bear the burden of embarassment for trying to make friends with someone who does not want to be my friend.
September 30th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Oh, and just to connect all the dots: CDL is a clod because he believes it is ok to approach any woman and say, “Hey, I want you.” On any given night, I do not want to be approached, and I should NOT have to wear a sign saying, “I will not have sex with you,” or be expected to endlessly explain the same to every guy who walks up and wants to sleep with me. Because men should NOT be free to “make an offer” to any woman they see. And women should NOT have to bear the burden of clarifying their expectatiosn when they did not ask to be approached in the first place. (and simply being an attractive woman DOES NOT EQUAL soliciting male attention).
September 30th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
“Yes. That IS what I’m saying. ‘Men should assume the responsibility of knowing who will have sex with them and how precisely to ask for it.’”
Then, with all due respect and no undue offense intended, you must be either down-right crazy or abjectly stupid to actually believe this, though I am not quite sure which.
Expecting any person, male or female, to know the inner-workings of another person’s mind (a person that they may or may not know to any reasonable degree) so as to know, definitively, at any given moment, what that person would or would not be interested in doing; and expecting them to know by which exact means that person would most like to be invited to participate is ridiculous to an extent to which “unreasonable” is a horrible understatement.
This standard shares nothing with what we expect in terms of ‘friendships’. We do not expect people to know the exact set of people that would be willing to befriend them. We don’t expect potential friends to make all of the correct steps and say all of the perfect things.
“But since the man wants the sex, HE should have to deal with the embarassment of not knowing, precisely, how his advances will be recieved.”
…but since the woman doesn’t, SHE should have to know exactly how to convey this to the man… why do I get the feeling that if we apply that same standard, required omniscience, to you that you will not be such a strong advocate of it.
If nothing else you have adequately demonstrated the double standard that I was talking about in my post, though I hardly think many women would stand in line behind you and allow you to speak for them on this issue.
September 30th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
1) We DO expect people to communicate indirectly all the time. If I call you and follow you home and ask repeatedly, ‘Want to be my fri-end…” people will think I’m a pathetic loser.
2) Expecting someone to understand the difference between “I am talking to you in a friendly manner” and “I may be open to a flirtation” is not really THAT difficult. Again, if I go home with a guy, and he refuses to call me the next day, and I continue to call him and follow him, I am pathetic. But a guy who approaches a woman, with no reason to believe she would like the approach, has a RIGHT? No. I just can’t accept that.
3) Double standard? Are you kidding? I dont’ think a woman should be saying, ‘Hey, you’ve got a penis, that means you want to sleep with me, right…” to a guy either. It’s just not necessarily a problem that seems to happen much in our society.
4) I am not requiring the man to have “omniscience.” I am simply asking that he refrain from asking every woman he sees for sex, based on nothing more than the fact that she is a woman. He can learn to understand something as simple as, “If I put my hand on the woman’s arm, and she draws back, she is not into me.” It’s not brain surgery. Again, this is how society works for the most part. Indirectly.
You know what. If it is really this difficult for y’all to accept 1) A man does NOT have the right to approach every woman sexually 2) A woman should NOT be required to deal, day in and day out, with being approached for sex by people who have NO REASON to think she’d want it And 3) Repeatedly asserting the above two opinions puts me in some sort of fringe lunatic category, than I think y’all have really gone a long way toward explaining why entering that law school is like eating glass for me.
Y’all really think I should be approached by these guys constantly? Y’all really think it’s MY job to directly communicate, day after day after day, that “No, I really don’t need sex right now. Since we’re in, you know, class. But thanks for asking.”
This makes sense? I don’t even know what to say anymore. I’m “bitter” ‘rage-filled” and “applying a double standard” by simply asking for one little thing Before you hit one me, please try to find out if that offer is welcome. If you are getting the feeling it is not welcome. Please stop before I have to tell you. Because when you don’t it is awkward and unpleasant and makes my life very difficult.And I think requesting you to test the waters, so to speak, is reasonable. Thank you.
You know what, at the very least I think I have guaranteed that no one is going to hit on me for the rest of the year. And there’s no way in hell I’m going to remain in either the midwest or the legal profession. So it doesn’t really matter.
Pete sweetie, i think you’re really smart. Probably way smarter than me. And I have no idea what you’re talking about anymore. I think you’re so good at arguing that it’s all going over my head. And I dont’ think I’m ever going to catch up. So good luck on your brief. Wish me luck on mine. And let’s just not worry about it anymore. This definitely was more interesting than the pen trap register thingy, though
October 1st, 2006 at 10:47 am
Wow, that argument got so far to the extremes. Son of Rape Discussion: The Sequel.
I think you both are missing that there is a middle ground here. As far as what Dizzy is advocating, that is an extreme position. Pete’s right, that sounds like omniscience. The problem is actually something neither of you discussed. It’s not when the girl is just talking with a guy that’s the problem. Dizzy is absolutely right on that, if you’re having a casual conversation and the girl is clearly not sending signals, then the guy should get that. Talking might be the one positive signal out of 100, 99 others of which are negative.
The problem is that women (and men) flirt with each other without wanting it to lead anywhere (at least they should). Now there’s one negative signal mixed up within 99 positive ones. And this is where the guy who misses that signal, and the girl who was not clear, need to accept that “I’m having a great time, would you like to go back to my place,” “No thanks, but it was nice to hang out for a while” need not be awkward if you just accept it as a necessary cost.
In conclusion, the signals that women send today are adequate. If a guy makes a mistake when a girl flirts with him, he’s not socially retarded. He should accept that he was wrong without the girl being a “tease,” “bitch,” or lesbian. He should also know when it’s flirting and when it’s not. And a girl who flirts with guys (not just talking) should accept that she’ll have to be direct with guys when the time comes to lay the cards on the table, so to speak. If a girl just talks to a guy, and he propositions her, she has every right to belittle him. But if he’s bought her a few rounds, they’ve danced for a good hour, and changed bars together, in the midst of a hundred other things, then she should be direct and firm, but he made an honest mistake.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Thank you Taco.
And wait, y’all think I’m ripping on guys who’ve talked to me all night, danced, flirted, and THEN get shot down? I thought I said pretty clearly that I’m not going to fault someone who made an honest mistake. I’m faulting the guy who approaches at random, like a telemarketer, and acts like I owe him time to make his pitch. Over and over again. THIS is the guy I get a lot in law school. And he’s pretty obnoxious. Because he’s selling something I haven’t asked for. No one likes that.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:47 pm
More on this tomorrow… but, as I’ve said before, Dizzy, that guy is almost wholly outside the scope of what I’ve written in this post, except insomuchas if he does come up and make his pitch, and you only hint around at your answer, you should expect a bit more pestering. (I’m not saying that he has a right to pester you, only that you should expect it anyway)
After all, if he thinks that that is appropriate behavior, why do you think that he’d all of a sudden “wise up” and take a hint?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Then everyone is arguing something different here Dizzy, because the original post that started all of this was about a guy who had been getting signals from a partner at his law firm and misread them. We don’t know what happened there, but we can assume he thought she was flirting with him.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:35 pm
In the original post: The woman was a STRANGER. He thought she was flirting with him based on a work-related conversation that could have had with anyone in the room. And the fact that she made EYE CONTACT? That’s not a hint. That’s a basic social nicety. Then he outrightly solicited her for a one-night-stand, five times, AFTER she turned down his first not-very-subtle hint. That is completely unacceptable.
NOT every woman wants a one night stand with a stranger. And it is the burden of the GUY who wants such a transaction to avoid bothering people who do not want same with his sales pitch. So WHAT if he thought she was flirting with him? His ‘flirting” signal is set so low that the starbucks barrista is too. That IS his problem. NOT mine.
And yeah Pete, the fact that he can’t take a hint is what’s wrong with him. I DO expect him to wise up. Because that’s just manners. And I’ve met more of this guy in law school than anywhere else. Ever. Seriously, my friends think I’m making up people like CDL. And they’re all hot single girls who get approached a lot. These guys. Are not ok.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Oh, and the definition of a stranger, for our purposes: Someone you only know on a professional basis. And have only spoken with in a professional setting. (which includes a law school class) Or someone you have only talked to in a public setting, one which was NOT the scene of a mutually-arranged meeting.
If this is the level which you know a girl, you are REQUIRED to speak with her alone. In private. Before soliciting sex. Therefore, CDL was ok in asking the partner to go somewhere else with him. He was NOT ok in then asking himself over to her place when that original offer was refused.
The fact that this needs to be explained is freaking me out.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:43 pm
I can’t help myself…
Look, CDL was at least a complete moron (how could he have thought what he was doing was okay?) and at most a complete jerk (he continued on just to be malicious).
But here’s my questions: where are all the other guys like this? I’m not saying they don’t exist, as they well might - I don’t know. But Dizzy, you keep talking about how you’ve “met more of this guy in law school than anywhere else.” Well, one is more than zero - so is CDL it? Who else? When/where else?
And if this problem is so prevalent (which, again, I’m not saying it’s not - but I haven’t seen it), then why do your friends who are “all hot single girls who get approached a lot” also “think [you're] making up people like CDL?” Why don’t they believe you if this happens “over and over again”?
The plural of anecdote is not data, but I’d be happy with even some anecdotes at this point.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:23 pm
You got it. Just let me get some sleep tonight first.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:08 am
…and, for the sake of my sanity… how about you post them on your site and then just post a link to them in these comments, please and thank you.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:17 pm
[Assholes who have Graduated](http://dizzydoesit.blogspot.com/2006/10/assholes-who-have-graduated.html)
[Preliminary Theory of Law School](http://dizzydoesit.blogspot.com/2006/10/preliminary-theory-of-law-school.html)