Caught Staring to Etiquette for Opposite Sex Interactions

[Bourbaki1123]

I don't think anyone has a problem with being approached as long as you aren't aggressive or willfully persistent after being rejected.

I think many women probably are creeped out when guys stare at them for long periods of time, but I balance this out; I stare at everyone for long periods of time and express little to no emotion. If they look away I keep staring until they check again and leave quickly when they look away the second time. Sometimes I pop up going the opposite direction as they leave the building, and then I make sure they see me near their car in the parking lot from a distance but disappear when they get close using my serial stalker ninja powers.

 

[muppet]

... but disappear when they get close using my serial stalker ninja powers.

One time I was in a bar on a college football social when I bumped into a (admittedly not unattractive) girl I already knew. My "friends" figuring I was chatting her up, started walking over from the other side of the room, one at a time at irregular intervals and asked me how the ninja training was going. One particular lad had obviously not been party to the original joke, and wandered over with a really confused look on his face: "Alright Rob, people keep telling me you're a ninja?"

 

[Huckleberry]

To Cryptonic et al: No one (including me) is suggesting it is a reprehensible act to check someone out.

I would be happy if y'all acknowledged that
- there is a grey area between 'checking out' and 'ogling - who cares what they think'
- there is a point in that grey area where it will likely cause stress and anxiety in the target
- the problem lies in not knowing (or caring) where within the grey area lies the boundary beyond which harm occurs
- crossing that line, regardless of whether intentionally or unintentionally is the real injustice here.

Yes, there is a difference between checking out and oggling. It can be pervasive and uncomfortable. It doesn't happen to me very often so I'm not too familiar with it. When underage girls look at me I feel that discomfort. When the Dairy Queen man looked at me I felt discomfort. There have been a few women that I wasn't interested in that looked at me rather persistently and that was uncomfortable. I never felt threatened by any of them though. It doesn't bother me that they stared. The discomfort was momentary.

I suppose if it was a habitual experience and happened everywhere I went then I might feel differently. I'd be indifferent to people's stares rather than be uncomfortable. If I felt threatened then I might be very defensive about how people look at me. The real injustice is the crimes that instil the fear of threat in a gaze.

 

[honestrosewater]

Going back a bit: do women who get asked out spontaeously by guys (who may or may not have been staring at them) have any issues with the guy making an approach based entirely on their physical form?]

By 'spontaneously' do you mean in a context where it is unexpected? I don't mind, but I don't know if I am typical in this respect. If you are interested in a sexual relationship with someone, physical attraction is important. I think this situation is a little tricky because, even if the motivation is welcome and all, the approach might not be. There is a conflict for me between knowing that someone might just want to be left alone and not wanting to miss an opportunity.

I saw this guy at school the other day who I thought was cute. I thought about saying something to him, but it seemed weird. I didn't know him at all. We just passed by each other. My approaching him would pretty much have said that I thought he was cute and wanted to know more about him. But I knew that maybe he was just trying to get to class and didn't want to deal with me. So I just smiled and left him alone. But when I am on the other side of that and the guy approaches me, it is understandable and acceptable even if it is an imposition of sorts. You can't really fault someone for asking. Even when the guy is not considerate in his approach, it is just one of those things that you have to deal with in order be part of society. It's a small price to pay. Honking and yelling things is pretty much the only thing that gets to the point of being genuinely annoying to me. This happens a lot when I am out running and I just want to enjoy my run and block out the rest of the world. Sometimes it is startling because I am not really paying attention and then suddenly someone is honking at me, and I think I am about to get hit or something, but then the guy whistles or shouts some baby-something and I want to punch him. So, yeah. I do suggest that you refrain from that. Please. Tell your friends. I totally don't get the point of it anyway. Maybe if someone could explain it, I would find it less annoying.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Consider what it must be like for a man to go through life (particularly one that is not particularly handsome) dealing with the fact that a significant number of women out there may well look at him and wonder if he is a rapist. He gets caught staring at a woman who seems discomfited by his merely looking at her and he has to wonder what this woman must think of him that she seems uncomfortable, or even offended, that he would dine to notice her or find her attractive.

But we are focused on the person being looked at for some reason even though that person can gather little from it other than that the person looking likely finds them attractive. And that's supposed to be damaging in some way?

and I am actually trying to attract the attention of some men -- I'd like to find a nice one.

I'm not directing this at you Rose, I have no idea what you are like out in the real world, but it has always struck me as funny these women that dress up sexy to get attention and then go out and get upset when guys that they are not interested in look at them. The number of times I have seen a woman showing off a bunch of cleavage only to suddenly feel the need to cover herself up after seeing what company she is in is just hilarious.

Its hard to take women seriously when they act like this and part of the reason many of us men really don't care what a woman thinks about us looking at her.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Going back a bit: do women who get asked out spontaeously by guys (who may or may not have been staring at them) have any issues with the guy making an approach based entirely on their physical form?

I once asked a woman out that was working at a store I was in. I had seen her once before and thought she was very pretty, she also seemed to have a sort of personality I like from the way in which she carried herself, so I just went for it. She said she had a boyfriend but she seemed flattered and even smiled and seemed happy to see me the next time I was in the store (I was rather embarrassed myself).

I totally don't get the point of it anyway. Maybe if someone could explain it, I would find it less annoying.

It works. Crazy as it sounds it sometimes actually works. Not that I have done it but I have seen it done successfully (and I'm fairly certain she was not a hooker).

 

[Cyrus]

Every post in this thread cracks me up.

 

[Huckleberry]

I totally don't get the point of it anyway. Maybe if someone could explain it, I would find it less annoying.

It works. Crazy as it sounds it sometimes actually works. Not that I have done it but I have seen it done successfully (and I'm fairly certain she was not a hooker).

Do they stop long enough for an approach to work? I've always just considered it an outburst of testosterone, kinda like saying "Good afternoon Miss. I consider you to be an attractive woman and if we were in different circumstances I would feel obliged to inform you of my opinions and possibly see if you were busy this Friday." It comes out as "Woohoo!"

I was like 13 and walking to the store with my mother when a bunch of young men drove by. One of them honked and howled at my mom and they kept on driving. She laughed a little and said nobody had done that to her for a while. I'm not sure if that means she minded or appreciated it or both or neither. I got the impression from the way she laughed that it was a little of both.

I was just visiting home from the navy and was walking down the street and a car full of girls honks at me. I turn around and start walking towards them and they freak out and start yelling at the driver to go. I guess I must look pretty good from behind but like week old roadkill from the front. They took off pretty quick. It must be my snaggletooth smile.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Do they stop long enough for an approach to work?

Yes. I've seen women stop and talk to men that honked at them. You'd almost think that they were picking up prostitutes except that it was broad daylight and not an area where you see prostitutes. I've also seen guys just standing around suddenly say something like "Hey baby, where are you going?" and have a phone number only a couple of minutes later.

 

[honestrosewater]

Yes. I've seen women stop and talk to men that honked at them. You'd almost think that they were picking up prostitutes except that it was broad daylight and not an area where you see prostitutes. I've also seen guys just standing around suddenly say something like "Hey baby, where are you going?" and have a phone number only a couple of minutes later.

Now that I think of it, I did used to get into cars with strangers when I was young and stupid (so incredibly stupid). I was thinking of guys who don't stop or turn around, which makes the message seem pointless, though I suppose they might have stopped if I had given some indication that I wanted them to. I don't think there is any good way for me to test this, though.

Consider what it must be like for a man to go through life (particularly one that is not particularly handsome) dealing with the fact that a significant number of women out there may well look at him and wonder if he is a rapist

Do some guys really feel this way?

 

[DaveC426913]

You talk of the effects of a man's stare on a woman and say that there is no judgement on her part. This is the list you provided.Every line starts with 'you' which implies the viewer in this case. She is both being judged and judging in return, rightfully so I say.

But she did not ask for this. You cannot claim it's a two-way street.

You say that not looking at a woman is a way to not cause her discomfort. I disagree with this. Even if she walks around all day and doesn't catch a single guy checking her out (which would be uncomfortable for some women too) there is still the possibility that something truly harmful can happen. Whether guys look at her or not, none of the real danger is lessened to her. If anything, catching guys staring at her works to her benefit, because it makes people's interests clear. She can trust at least that much to be true, which is one thing she didn't know if nobody looks under the pretense of being gentlemanly.

Really. You honestly think that, in general, women feel the way you describe. That a woman would rather all the men in her office were overt about their attraction to her. Tell me you honestly think that.

Whether you do or not is beside the point. It is making a decision for her. Ask her what benefits her and I'll bet she'll say "please don't undress me with your eyes".

I suppose if it was a habitual experience and happened everywhere I went then I might feel differently. I'd be indifferent to people's stares rather than be uncomfortable. If I felt threatened then I might be very defensive about how people look at me. The real injustice is the crimes that instil the fear of threat in a gaze.

I had an inspiration for a Twilight Zone short story that I plan to write one day. I thought of it the day I realized men will never have to walk in women's shoes.

The story centres around a man who is a misogynist who (since this is a Twilight Zone ep) needs to be given a taste of his own medicine. Through some mystical means, he is forced to walk the city streets late at night with a giant neon sign over his head that says "I have myriad treasures under my cloak and I am too weak to protect myself."

No matter that he is perfectly capable of defending himself - he is perceived as being a mark. No matter that the perception is utterly wrong. The only factor is the preconceptions in the minds of the people who look at him. For this reason alone he must constantly be defending himself from every jerk who thinks they've spotted and easy mark. And yes, he is just as cautious around the nice guys. He has to be. He can never drop his guard.

Consider what it must be like for a man to go through life (particularly one that is not particularly handsome) dealing with the fact that a significant number of women out there may well look at him and wonder if he is a rapist.

Yeah. He's the victim.

Sounds like the slender-built guy who complains that he's not beefy enough to be a good bully and beat up the little kids. Oh woe is him.

 

[Huckleberry]

But she did not ask for this. You cannot claim it's a two-way street.

How would you recommend a man approach a woman without looking at her? I think it would be great if women approached men more often, but it isn't expected of them. I don't see the benefit to concealing sexual desire, especially if a direct, honest approach is more successful. Why would I want her to think I wasn't interested in her sexually if that is a possibility I'm considering? I'm not removing her choice in any real matter. I'm only removing her choice to be unaware of my interest. What she makes of it is hers to decide. I'm speaking my opinion with my eyes. Some women won't like it and some will, just as if I spoke my opinion with my lips. I fail to see the difference. Should I only communicate my opinion to people who won't be uncomfortable with it? How can I tell if she will be uncomfortable without telling her my opinion? I am sexually attracted to women and it is wrong to announce that to women. Where did that partition go? My discomfort is my shame. (HRW, yes, there are guys as insecure as this. They are often called nice guys. This has no correlation to how nice they are, but conformity to polite conventions and concern for personal public image.)

Really. You honestly think that, in general, women feel the way you describe. That a woman would rather all the men in her office were overt about their attraction to her. Tell me you honestly think that.

Whether you do or not is beside the point. It is making a decision for her. Ask her what benefits her and I'll bet she'll say "please don't undress me with your eyes".

Keep in mind that a woman's coworkers are not strangers. They should be familiar with her already, both her form and her personality. It's also an office, where one is expected to maintain a professional attitude. It isn't a place where people go to meet potential mates, but that often happens anyway, so apparently people are checking each other out even at the office. I would think that a woman would want a man that liked her to let her know, especially if she also liked him. I don't think she would want him to hit on her every day if she rejected him already. The location doesn't matter.

I said nothing about what women would rather have men do. My point wasn't that looking doesn't cause discomfort. My point was that not looking will not benefit her in any real way. If the cause of her discomfort is fear for her well-being then her situation does not improve whether men look or not. The solution isn't to stop men from checking out women. That solves nothing. A solution would be to eliminate the sex drive and aggression from all men regardless of the individual's propensity towards those things. Then men won't look at women sexually. I don't think that solution is desirable to either sex.
edit - burkas are a more likely solution.

I had an inspiration for a Twilight Zone short story that I plan to write one day. I thought of it the day I realized men will never have to walk in women's shoes.

The story centres around a man who is a misogynist who (since this is a Twilight Zone ep) needs to be given a taste of his own medicine. Through some mystical means, he is forced to walk the city streets late at night with a giant neon sign over his head that says "I have myriad treasures under my cloak and I am too weak to protect myself."

No matter that he is perfectly capable of defending himself - he is perceived as being a mark. No matter that the perception is utterly wrong. The only factor is the preconceptions in the minds of the people who look at him. For this reason alone he must constantly be defending himself from every jerk who thinks they've spotted and easy mark. And yes, he is just as cautious around the nice guys. He has to be. He can never drop his guard.

I guarantee that I do not have x-ray vision to see the myriad treasures beneath a woman's cloak. So unless you are implying that looking at a woman sexually is akin to rape I don't see the point in the analogy. It should also be mentioned that women also look at men sexually. They can easily be as lascivious as men, and their eyesight is just as strong, so no disadvantage there. I still say that we should all just go naked and forget about these perverse clothing conventions. Saying "nice breasts" should be no more startling and no less complimentary than saying "nice shirt".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Do some guys really feel this way?

"Rapist" may be a bit extreme but think about it. We have a thread here because a guy felt like he had done something wrong being caught looking at a woman. Most of the men in this thread seem to realize this impression of it being bad to be caught staring(regardless of whether they agree it is bad). In contrast none of the women seem to think it is a big deal to be 'caught'. When someone made a statement that one ought to unabashedly take an opportunity to look a woman over and not worry anything about it "being wrong" or that the woman may not like it several people chimed into make negative comments about the poster. You yourself even made a comment about it making you think of a classification for a type of rapist. Not many people seem to be wondering whether or not it is improper of the woman to be offended by a display of attraction or that perhaps it really is 'snobbish' to have such a reaction. What would you think if a man saw you checking him out and he acted offended? And then there is Dave's argument. Referring to looking at someone as violating their personal space makes it sound like a borderline sexual assault in and of itself.

Yeah. He's the victim.

Sounds like the slender-built guy who complains that he's not beefy enough to be a good bully and beat up the little kids. Oh woe is him.

OMG! That guy is looking at me! He probably thinks I'm attractive. I didn't ask for this! WOE IS ME!

 

[honestrosewater]

When someone made a statement that one ought to unabashedly take an opportunity to look a woman over and not worry anything about it "being wrong" or that the woman may not like it several people chimed into make negative comments about the poster. You yourself even made a comment about it making you think of a classification for a type of rapist. Not many people seem to be wondering whether or not it is improper of the woman to be offended by a display of attraction or that perhaps it really is 'snobbish' to have such a reaction. What would you think if a man saw you checking him out and he acted offended?

I would probably think that he was overreacting. But, and I've tried to make this point already, I would then stop looking. Before the person let's you know in some way, it's all a big guessing game, so I say you have leeway. But if someone let's you know -- verbally or visually or however -- that they don't want you looking, I think you need to stop looking. I asked twice what you guys would do in that situation, and no one answered.

It was not his desire for women or admiration of beauty that I found alarming. It was his apparent contempt for a class of people. Contempt for a class of people should be alarming.

And then there is Dave's argument. Referring to looking at someone as violating their personal space makes it sound like a borderline sexual assault in and of itself.

I'm not sure I'm with Dave in the details, but I see some substance to the core of his argument. What is the difference between looking and touching? Can we all agree that it is inappropriate to grope people that you pass on the street? So why is sight different? Does self-ownership not apply to your appearance?

There clearly are some differences between sight and touch. It's possible to look at someone without them knowing, so looking doesn't always necessarily affect them in any way. Touch doesn't really work this way. But does a person have a right to not be looked at? I think the boundary between incidental looking and sexual ogling is just hard to clarify and avoid/protect. But there does seem to be a legitimate boundary there. What about using mirrors to look up skirts? Is that an invasion of personal space?

 

[Huckleberry]

I would probably think that he was overreacting. But, and I've tried to make this point already, I would then stop looking. Before the person let's you know in some way, it's all a big guessing game, so I say you have leeway. But if someone let's you know -- verbally or visually or however -- that they don't want you looking, I think you need to stop looking. I asked twice what you guys would do in that situation, and no one answered.

I was at the airport in Mexico D.F. and from across the terminal I saw a group of attractive women. One of them was literally head and shoulders above the rest. She must have been standing at 6'6". I couldn't see her shoes so maybe she was wearing stilts, or maybe she was standing on a dwarfs shoulders or something. It looked like she was a model. Her hair long and black and pulled up tight and made her look even more statuesque. I stopped right in my tracks and just stood there staring at her for a good 30 seconds with my dufflebag slung over my shoulder. It wasn't contempt that made me stare. I was just blown away.

When I was going to school there was one guy there who had suffered horrible burns to his face. He was badly disfigured. I know it is polite convention not to stare, but I am curious like a child. I want to see it and examine this unusual thing and ask him questions. I never did because I thought he might consider it rude. I say 'unusual thing' because that is how I see it. His face is a part of his body, but it isn't what makes him a person. Similarly, I catch myself looking at some women with the same curiousity, perhaps with an additional sexual element. The world is like an art gallery to me. People will always be people, but bodies are just bodies.

A guy with a mirror trying to look up women's dresses is juvenile and perverse. It wasn't an area she meant to display. It's invasive to force her to reveal parts of herself that she doesn't want to reveal. I'm sure convention would dictate an aggressive harsh response in reaction to this behaviour and he'll get whatever is coming to him for it, legal charges, beaten up by some guy friends, whatever. He knew the consequences beforehand so he'll have to deal with them. But really he isn't seeing anything more than he would if he was watching women on the beach. The issue is that he forcefully invaded her privacy. That's important. How enraged people get over it will vary.

Not that I walk around oggling women, but if a woman told me to stop staring at her I would. I understand that it is commonly considered rude to stare. I think that's a pretty silly convention, but it's one I can live with. "Don't look at me" just seems like a thing a petulant child would say. Even if some guy is using his best pervy creep stare what difference does it make? He's identifying himself for what he is. Why should any woman allow that to change how she feels about herself? He has no authority over anyone unless they actually care what he thinks. Why anyone would is beyond me. What, just because he is a man you have to respect his judgements? To hell with that! He's an idiot. It isn't his stare that concerns me, but the possibility of a physical threat.

I feel that women should not be ashamed of their bodies, or rely on the judgements of men or other women to determine how they feel about themselves. I believe it is a benefit for all humanity if one class of people are not dominated by another. So while people will always judge, there is nothing saying one must buy into this harmful convention that women should be insecure about their bodies because their sexuality should be hidden. Why any man would want to force women to hide their sexuality is beyond me. It's an archaic idea that seems to work contrary to its intended purpose of insuring fidelity. It's really just a mechanism for man's authority over women so it sticks around.

It was not his desire for women or admiration of beauty that I found alarming. It was his apparent contempt for a class of people. Contempt for a class of people should be alarming.

I didn't see it that way. Someone says "I don't care..." and immediately people assume contempt. It's ambivalence, not contempt. Being unconcerned with convention is often considered contemptuous. He knew people would feel this way so he made statements about his position on feminism and mentioned his female friends. People read this and think "Yeah, yeah, that's the chocolate sprinkles on the BS sundae." He is already operating outside convention just by making his statement. Why would anyone interpret it according to conventions he isn't using? There may be contempt, but it doesn't seem so apparent to me.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would probably think that he was overreacting. But, and I've tried to make this point already, I would then stop looking. Before the person let's you know in some way, it's all a big guessing game, so I say you have leeway. But if someone let's you know -- verbally or visually or however -- that they don't want you looking, I think you need to stop looking. I asked twice what you guys would do in that situation, and no one answered.

Sorry about that. If a person decided that it was necessary to indicate to me that they would prefer I not look at them I would probably find it amusing and over sensitive of them (as you would apparently think yourself, at least the overly sensitive part). If it bothered the person that much I would probably stop looking just to be nice but would likely find it hard to not look again occasionally to see what they are doing and how they are reacting. I'm a people watcher so I do not just look at people because I am attracted to them or have some interest in approaching them. Mostly I am not 'caught'. People, usually women, may occasionally signal disinterest in me if 'caught' but they usually ignore me after that.

Rarely I find women looking at me. I tend to be shy and self conscious so it may make me feel nervous and uncomfortable. But I know that I "own" those reactions, as a pop psychologist might say, and that I am ultimately responsible for my feeling uncomfortable that someone is looking at me. Most likely I will ignore them or maybe I will approach them or go someplace where I will not be seen by them if I feel particularly uncomfortable about it.

It was not his desire for women or admiration of beauty that I found alarming. It was his apparent contempt for a class of people. Contempt for a class of people should be alarming.

Here I would pretty much echo what Huck has already responded. I would add that I personally find contempt of some degree or other for certain 'classes' of people, usually just a minor amusement with their attitudes. As noted earlier I find it silly if a woman feels the need to signal to me that she would prefer I not look at her. It does seem 'snobby'. Obviously women have no issue with the idea of a man they find attractive looking at them. To signal to someone that she would prefer they not so much as lay eyes upon her would seem to me to indicate that they are somehow lowly, inferior, or so disgusting that she feels dirty or afraid even being looked at by them.

edit: A single woman goes out in public dressed in a sexy manner to invite men to look at her. She is obviously hoping that a man she finds attractive and may have interest in will accept that invitation. But that invitation can not be made singularly to individuals, it is broadcast to everyone who may look at her. To signal to certain individuals that she does not wish to be looked at by them is like saying "Well you're not invited" after inviting everyone and any one. How is that not rude?

I'm not sure I'm with Dave in the details, but I see some substance to the core of his argument. What is the difference between looking and touching? Can we all agree that it is inappropriate to grope people that you pass on the street? So why is sight different? Does self-ownership not apply to your appearance?

There clearly are some differences between sight and touch. It's possible to look at someone without them knowing, so looking doesn't always necessarily affect them in any way. Touch doesn't really work this way. But does a person have a right to not be looked at? I think the boundary between incidental looking and sexual ogling is just hard to clarify and avoid/protect. But there does seem to be a legitimate boundary there. What about using mirrors to look up skirts? Is that an invasion of personal space?

Observing a person is the most minimal and non-invasive way you could possibly have contact with someone. Even typing this to you, so long as you read it, is in my mind more intimate/invasive than if I were to simply watch you running by in the park on your morning run. Looking is completely passive. One is not necessarily trying to get your attention or illicit any response. Its hardly more intrusive than simply being present. The only 'invasion' I can imagine comes with the potential intent which goes back to my mention of men living with women looking at them as potential creeps/stalkers/rapists. In what way could you really find any intrusiveness to a person merely looking at you other than to assign a possibly malign motive to the looking?

Edit: as for mirrors on the shoes a person is obviously invading your private space in such an instance. They must get close to you and attempt to circumvent the barriers you have placed between yourself and them.

 

[honestrosewater]

I didn't see it that way. Someone says "I don't care..." and immediately people assume contempt. It's ambivalence, not contempt. Being unconcerned with convention is often considered contemptuous.

I have no problem whatsoever with being unconcerned about conventions. I am probably (coincidentally) one of the least conventional people ever in the universe of the world. Perhaps he does feel ambivalent. But when I see exclamation points!? and SHOUTING, I do not think of ambivalence. The two don't seem to go together. Perhaps he is ambivalent about the subject but frustrated with our discussion of it. I don't know, as I said. I was pointing out something that I thought might be important.

I probably don't have any major disagreements with anyone here, but it sounds like the world could use more kindness.

 

[DaveC426913]

Referring to looking at someone as violating their personal space makes it sound like a borderline sexual assault in and of itself.

Correct, it does not cross into sexual assault. The word was 'harm' (stress/anguish/emotion). One cannot invalidate the claim by substituting one's own words and then attacking those words. That is a straw man fallacy.

So, y'all have tried very hard to pick around the edges of the claim - which is a strong hint that everyone realizes that a direct attack will surely fail. It's time to ask straight out:

Are you confident that overtly ogling a person for their attractiveness does not create a conceivable potential for harm (stress/anguish/emotional) to the target? Yes or no.

 

[Huckleberry]

So, y'all have tried very hard to pick around the edges of the claim - which is a strong hint that everyone realizes that a direct attack will surely fail.

Fail to do what; to be universally correct or to convince you that other people are allowed to operate on their own principles? You are on the offensive here. Nobody has attacked your opinion. If you think it is inherently wrong to look at women sexually then stop doing that. You won't make me feel ashamed of it too.

It's time to ask straight out:

Are you confident that overtly ogling a person for their attractiveness does not create a conceivable potential for harm (stress/anguish/emotional) to the target? Yes or no.

The current convention causes harm to both women and men. I've stated that as my opinion at least twice already. It creates a power struggle.

Do you want to be able to stare at a attractive woman while having no intention of making good on it? Then you're doing fine.

But if you have any intention of ever dating an attractive woman, then waht does have a point. Women like confidence. Women like men who have the cahones to hold a gaze, smile and then approach them. To a woman, that's waht* separates the boys from the men.

Ladies? Jump in and correct if I'm wrong.

Perhaps it is time for a new convention; one that doesn't twist people up inside whenever someone looks at them, or make them so afraid of judgement that they can't look at someone at all. The current convention is disfunctional.

 

[Huckleberry]

I probably don't have any major disagreements with anyone here, but it sounds like the world could use more kindness.

For real. Now if we could only agree on how best to serve kindness that would be great. If we could even distinguish it from politeness that would be a step forward.

It sounds like you've made a decision without making a decision, if that makes any sense. If you care to share, what would you consider kindness in this situation?

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Also possibly interesting is this thread with study-
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=293904&highlight=objectify

Perhaps this stare causes discomfort-
'And the men who scored higher as "hostile sexists"—those who view women as controlling and invaders of male space—didn't show brain activity that indicates they saw the women in bikinis as humans with thoughts and intentions.'

 

[honestrosewater]

what would you consider kindness in this situation?

In the looking situation? I guess a good start would be not assuming the worst about people when you can afford to or giving up your eyeful to save someone some discomfort. If I run to my complex's usually-empty laundry room at night in my robe because I don't feel like getting dressed to go get my laundry and seem uncomfortable or embarrassed when I run into you, don't assume it's because I am a snob or think you are a rapist. Assume I was actually not trying to attract any attention or send any sexual messages to anyone and just look away. I'll also assume the best about you and try to laugh about the situation and maybe be impressed enough by your gesture to really give you something to look at.

...after I run a background check on you because I do, of course, assume you are a rapist.

A little kindness can go a long way.

 

[DaveC426913]

Fail to do what; to be universally correct or to convince you that other people are allowed to operate on their own principles?

Again. Not saying any of this isn't true. No claim of right or wrong here. I do it myself.

Just not deluding myself that there's no potential harm in it.

Some people here still think that no harm can come of it.

You are on the offensive here. Nobody has attacked your opinion.

Again. Just trying to get people to abandon the idea that there is no potential harm.

If you think it is inherently wrong to look at women sexually then stop doing that. You won't make me feel ashamed of it too.

And again. No judgement is forthcoming.

You are tilting at an imaginary windmill here.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

But she did not ask for this. You cannot claim it's a two-way street.


Really. You honestly think that, in general, women feel the way you describe. That a woman would rather all the men in her office were overt about their attraction to her. Tell me you honestly think that.

Whether you do or not is beside the point. It is making a decision for her. Ask her what benefits her and I'll bet she'll say "please don't undress me with your eyes".



I had an inspiration for a Twilight Zone short story that I plan to write one day. I thought of it the day I realized men will never have to walk in women's shoes.




Yeah. He's the victim.

Sounds like the slender-built guy who complains that he's not beefy enough to be a good bully and beat up the little kids. Oh woe is him.

Why not just send him to a gym in the Castro District? Honestly I think we can objectively call being straight and getting harassed in the Castro District as bad an experience as being a woman and being harassed by guys.

Also, I think that you are sorely mistaken about guys not being able to understand the problem. I suffer from mild agoraphobia (used to be much more acute), I can guarantee that I am at least as bad off as far as social anxiety and fear goes than the average woman. I think honesty is more important than preserving the feelings of others, and I think that if we were all a bit more honest about how we felt we would be better off.

I ask you this, sir, do you feel constant anxiety when walking through a crowded area? I do, I perceive many groups of people as hostile. I live in what I would call the south and I have long hair. 50% of the cars I see have McCain Palin and John Deere bumper stickers, and I have in fact had moron hicks yell at me from their cars (due to the long hair bit). I would say that I am in a position to understand the sort of idiotic hostility some can have, and why I can empathize with those who dislike it.

By 'spontaneously' do you mean in a context where it is unexpected? I don't mind, but I don't know if I am typical in this respect. If you are interested in a sexual relationship with someone, physical attraction is important. I think this situation is a little tricky because, even if the motivation is welcome and all, the approach might not be. There is a conflict for me between knowing that someone might just want to be left alone and not wanting to miss an opportunity.

I saw this guy at school the other day who I thought was cute. I thought about saying something to him, but it seemed weird. I didn't know him at all. We just passed by each other. My approaching him would pretty much have said that I thought he was cute and wanted to know more about him. But I knew that maybe he was just trying to get to class and didn't want to deal with me. So I just smiled and left him alone. But when I am on the other side of that and the guy approaches me, it is understandable and acceptable even if it is an imposition of sorts. You can't really fault someone for asking. Even when the guy is not considerate in his approach, it is just one of those things that you have to deal with in order be part of society. It's a small price to pay. Honking and yelling things is pretty much the only thing that gets to the point of being genuinely annoying to me. This happens a lot when I am out running and I just want to enjoy my run and block out the rest of the world. Sometimes it is startling because I am not really paying attention and then suddenly someone is honking at me, and I think I am about to get hit or something, but then the guy whistles or shouts some baby-something and I want to punch him. So, yeah. I do suggest that you refrain from that. Please. Tell your friends. I totally don't get the point of it anyway. Maybe if someone could explain it, I would find it less annoying.

I can explain it; they suffer from Chronic Douchebaggery Syndrome.

 

[Red Rum]

So I was studying in the library, and I noticed this very beautiful girl a few rows down, and I was kinda staring at her (... ok yes, I was staring), and then she looked up and caught me staring at her. I mean, it's only natural to stare at attractive people, isn't it? It's their fault their so good looking! Anyway, I blushed (I could feel the heat in my cheeks), looked away, and ducked my head under the little partitions between the desks. I ask you now: what is the correct response when caught staring at one of the opposite sex?
Also, do girls think it is flattering or disgusting when a guy stares at them?

Smile and try not to look sleazy. Don't do what everyone in this country does which is either look away or completely ignore the person who stared. i take perverse pleasure in making natives of this country speak to me when i catch them staring. I get tremendous pleasure from watching them squirm with embarrassment at the prospect of having to converse with a stranger.

 

[DaveC426913]

Also, do girls think it is flattering or disgusting when a guy stares at them?

I think it often depends on how attractive the guy is.

 

[GeorginaS]

Also, do girls think it is flattering or disgusting when a guy stares at them?

I think it often depends on how attractive the guy is.

And I think that qualifier depends on the woman.

 

[DaveC426913]

And I think that qualifier depends on the woman.

That's why I said often.

So, in the case of certain women, is the implication that all guys can flatter even if unattractive? Or all guys don't flatter even if attractive?

 

[Huckleberry]

Just not deluding myself that there's no potential harm in it.

There's no potential harm in the stare. She won't explode no matter how long a man looks at her. I don't understand why you insist on focusing on this aspect as some great harm.

Sexual desire is the most natural thing in the world, but yes, it does have the potential to be harmful to both women and men, which is a fact that you downplay with mock concern. People can screw themselves up royally looking for intent in a one-way mirror.

 

[DaveC426913]

There's no potential harm in the stare.

OK. I disagree.

I'm satisfied though at least that we're speaking the same language.

I can live with disagreeing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Correct, it does not cross into sexual assault. The word was 'harm' (stress/anguish/emotion). One cannot invalidate the claim by substituting one's own words and then attacking those words. That is a straw man fallacy.

If you make an unwanted action that causes potential harm to an individual you are assaulting them. If you are doing something potentially harmful while invading their personal space, you are assaulting them. If you make this assault in what may be construed as a sexually suggestive manner then you are guilty of sexual assault. So when you are saying that a person is causing potential harm to a person by invading their space in a sexually suggestive manner you are implying that this person is committing a sexual assault regardless of whether you choose to use those words or not. The logical conclusion of your argument is not a strawman.

So, y'all have tried very hard to pick around the edges of the claim - which is a strong hint that everyone realizes that a direct attack will surely fail. It's time to ask straight out:

Are you confident that overtly ogling a person for their attractiveness does not create a conceivable potential for harm (stress/anguish/emotional) to the target? Yes or no.

I have in fact treated this. If you were not so intent on blowing off all of my arguments and or making snarky eye rolling comments you might have noticed.
My arguments have been that the person should not take it in this fashion and that any emotional anguish they suffer because a person is looking at them who finds them attractive is their own issue.

Again. Just trying to get people to abandon the idea that there is no potential harm.

If I am in fact doing no harm and the person is harming themself by being overly sensitive perhaps they are they one who ought to be abondoning their perception of victimhood and deal with the real issue. I already stated that I myself become uncomfortable when people are checking me out but I know its my own issue and that they are doing nothing wrong.

Why not just send him to a gym in the Castro District? Honestly I think we can objectively call being straight and getting harassed in the Castro District as bad an experience as being a woman and being harassed by guys.

I have never been to the Castro District but I have had men check me out and flirt with me. I've had men at bars buy me drinks and get in my personal space and touch me (though not in any overtly sexual manner). None of that ever really bothered me even though I was not attracted to them at all. The only men that have made me uncomfortable were the man three times my age who asked me about my masturbatory habits and the random guy who cut me off with his car while I was walking down the street at night and asked me if I wanted to make out.

And I think that qualifier depends on the woman.

I've never met a woman who had an issue with a person she was attracted to checking them out. Of course many women consider a person that they find attractive to be checking them out and a person whom they do not find attractive to be 'oggling' them. Its a wholly different thing in their mind depending on how they perceive the person looking.

 

[Huckleberry]

In the looking situation? I guess a good start would be not assuming the worst about people when you can afford to or giving up your eyeful to save someone some discomfort. If I run to my complex's usually-empty laundry room at night in my robe because I don't feel like getting dressed to go get my laundry and seem uncomfortable or embarrassed when I run into you, don't assume it's because I am a snob or think you are a rapist. Assume I was actually not trying to attract any attention or send any sexual messages to anyone and just look away. I'll also assume the best about you and try to laugh about the situation and maybe be impressed enough by your gesture to really give you something to look at.

...after I run a background check on you because I do, of course, assume you are a rapist.

A little kindness can go a long way.

So I guess I probably shouldn't say something like "Don't drop your droors. I wouldn't want you to be embarrassed."

You almost had me there. Then I realized that your scenario is a carrot on the end of a stick. Maybe the horse gets it and maybe he doesn't. If he does what is expected of him then he stands a chance of being rewarded. I've found that a modicum of discomfort in a woman is a good sign of approval. The very stress that Dave says is creating harm when she disapproves is the same thing that signals attraction when she does. I'm not saying guys should run roughshod over every encounter like a plundering berserker, but chasing carrots won't get a man where he wants to go with or without you. Kindness is great, but not because it is expected or something to be rewarded. That is politeness. Kindness comes from the heart. It is part of a person's expression of who they are.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have in fact treated this. If you were not so intent on blowing off all of my arguments and or making snarky eye rolling comments you might have noticed.

You are not the only person in this discussion. I get the impression you think everything I've been writing has been directed at you and only you.

 

[Huckleberry]

OK. I disagree.

I'm satisfied though at least that we're speaking the same language.

I can live with disagreeing.

Yeah, I can too. I love arguing with you, Dave. I like the passion. It's been fun, and I've learned a few things even if we disagree. Thanks.

 

[GeorginaS]

That's why I said often.

So, in the case of certain women, is the implication that all guys can flatter even if unattractive? Or all guys don't flatter even if attractive?

Put that way, I'd say both and add, some women would only be flattered if the fellow in question was attractive.

And, as you've aptly pointed out, Dave, some women (and men) find the behaviour threatening and some don't. Some women and men feel self-conscious in those situations, and that makes them feel uncomfortable, and some don't. And, yes, threatening behaviour is in the eye of the person feeling threatened.

I hadn't really considered beyond my own reactions, which are not to feel threatened or self-conscious if someone is looking at me, and, if they behave politely, such as smiling, nodding, and going on their way, I'm flattered. I don't care what's going on with their attractiveness.

But then, taking other people's personalities into consideration, I suppose one could respond to the OP by suggesting that, it's a bad thing to get "caught" (I prefer the word "noticed" but the person in the OP felt "caught", so there it is) if the person doing the "catching" responds in such a way as to suggest they feel bad.