Caught Staring to Etiquette for Opposite Sex Interactions

[FayeKane]

So let me get this straight. It's unfair that you can't wear less frumpy, skimpier, perhaps even sluttier clothes than you do because guys might get turned on.

Y'know, I used to hate being carded when I bought wine because it meant the cashier thought I might be an innocent little girl. Now, I'd LOVE to be carded.

What if she wants to smell nice for herself? Maybe her mom bought perfume for her and she wears it for her sake or to remember her mom. Maybe she wears it for her boyfriend. Maybe some salesperson at a store sprayed it on her. Maybe it rubbed off from her girlfriend.

...and maybe it's a ritual of some weird religous cult. Right. But none of that matters to the guy, nor should it have to. Your motivation for looking sexy is not something that's their job to deduce before you deign to let them look at Her Majesty.

Why, of all the possibilities, would you assume it means she wants your attention?

BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY GUYS MEET GIRLS, SISTER. GROW UP AND DEAL WITH IT.

Or hide in a cave in the woods.

Lemme see, you think the world should be like in THX1138, where people are units, functions without feelings. Or perhaps you would outlaw people looking at (or god forbid, talking to) one another in public, and that "mating" should be arranged by a computer, in match.com-like parameter space.

No WAY.

Other than that they not touch you or illegally harass you, you have no legitimate expectation that every guy will completely ignore your ripe, juicy female body when, but for a milimetre of cotton, you walk around in front of them naked.

Someone needs to tell you the facts of life, dear, since they didn't tell you in Catholic Girl's school: the only reason you exist is to mate and die. You can love it or you can lump it

...but you can't EVER leave it.

My advice is to get used to that fact and--yes, I'm going to say it--be grateful you're young and sexy enough to get attention, because soon you won't be.

I used to think that it was unfortunate that I can't wear what I would like to wear because I have to consider how horny guys will react to it.

...But you CAN wear whatever you want! And you can chose to "consider" how guys will react--or you can ignore them. You can even smile back at them too; it's your choice, because you're FREE.

But so is the guy. And it's his choice to look at whatever he damn well pleases when it's walking down the street shaking its t*** and a** at him. If you're so prudish as to be ruffled and flustered by guys finding you attractive, then I say: you deserve to be.

But it's not merely unfortunate because if people would just not make assumptions like this, I could.

...And if someone fed all the homeless people, they wouldn't be hungry!

But it doesn't look like that's happnin' either.

You remind me of Bill Gates complaining that his wallet's so packed with currency that he has trouble fitting it in his pocket.

If you'd rather the world ignore you like they do old ladies, well... you WILL get your wish. And when you do, how much you want to bet your next wish will be to look young and sexy again?

I would gladly give up the chance of meeting a potential romantic partner outside of official dating channels

"Official" dating channels? Meaning what? Roped-off areas in bars? Government-policed no-feelings zones so you won't have to be troubled by the fact that maybe somewhere, a boy thinks you're cute?

Ptui. I spit!

In exchange for not having to be the object of horny guys' attention every single place that I go.

...unless you happen to be horny too, which you have been. Lots. And at those times, it's suddenly a GOOD thing!

It's hard for me to believe women like you are serious. Do you really think it's unfair that guys find you attractive even when you're NOT trolling for hunk on Saturday night?

How shamelessly narcissistic!

No matter what you wear, someone is going to find you attractive... There is no escaping it.

There's no "escaping", she says!

That's right sweetie, either become a hermit or there's no escaping it. You're trapped in a world where, at least for a little while longer, people have feelings instead of being androids and robots.

You'd BEST get used to it.

Don't get me wrong, it IS perfectly legal to be self-centered and devoid of empathy! You can even put your wrist to your forehead and say to no one in particular "a woman as beautiful as myself just CAN'T get away from all those men who love me [sigh...]"

But remember: the guys are free too-- free to look at every part of your sexy girl body-- and imagine doing whatever they want to it, whether you like it or NOT.

And thank god it's like that, too.

-- flk, former anti-sex prude who wised up while she's still young and sexy

 

[rootX]

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, it is importasnt to be reminded of this at least every 32 posts...



(somebody isn't coming to all the meetings...)

 

[lisab]

Yes, it is importasnt to be reminded of this at least every 32 posts...



(somebody isn't coming to all the meetings...)

C'mon now...it is a *really* long thread!

 

[DaveC426913]

GROW UP AND DEAL WITH IT...
Lemme see, you think the world should be...
Someone needs to tell you the facts of life, dear...
My advice is to get used to that fact and...
If you're so prudish...
etc. etc...

214 posts.
This has been an excellent and productive discussion about a very touchy subject that has been thusfar virtually free of emotion, derision and condescension.

Let's not start now.

 

[FayeKane]

Let's not start now.

I know, and I'm sorry! I tried reeeeally reeeeally hard not to reply on this thread, but I was just too weak.

I almost made it through the whole thing, too. But when I read "someone's going to find you attractive, there is no escaping it", a nonmaskable interrupt occurred in my head and my stoic resolve just shattered...

-flk

 

[DaveC426913]

I know, and I'm sorry! I tried reeeeally reeeeally hard not to reply on this thread, but I was just too weak.

I almost made it through the whole thing, too. But when I read "someone's going to find you attractive, there is no escaping it", a nonmaskable interrupt occurred in my head and my stoic resolve just shattered...

-flk

Nothing wrong with that. It's just the delivery you got to work on.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Here is my idea of a simple model of a typical physical communication: a sender encodes an intended message and sends it though a noisy channel to a receiver. The receiver receives the encoded message, along with whatever distortions it picked up along the way, and decodes it into a received message. The receiver does not have access to the intended message, even under the best of circumstances. Encouraging, broadcasting, inducing, and attracting are all properties that the receiver must attribute to the message. The receiver does not know what the sender intended. The receiver does not even know if the sender intended to send a message at all. No?

To stretch the analogy too far, the FCC regulations generally say devices are responsible for their own electromagnetic transmissions and for ensuring that no errant transmissions interferes with other electronic devices

 

[Huckleberry]

No. Some people are saying it is not free from potential harm.

It was a belief by some that there is no possible harm that was being challenged.

What you say is true, but even more vague.

I know, and I'm sorry! I tried reeeeally reeeeally hard not to reply on this thread, but I was just too weak.

I almost made it through the whole thing, too. But when I read "someone's going to find you attractive, there is no escaping it", a nonmaskable interrupt occurred in my head and my stoic resolve just shattered...

-flk

This girl's got claws!
I don't think HRW deserved that, but I'm glad a woman expressed the opinion that you did.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Just because you find something attractive does not mean that it was meant to attract you.

Right. And how do I know that? Generally when a person dresses in an attractive manner it is for the purpose of being attractive (ie, getting attention). Am I supposed to some how be capable of knowing that I obviously am not an intended target of that message? (Note that when I see a woman who is dressed very sexy I do in fact assume that they are most likely not at all going to be interested in me. Funny thing is that in most circumstances if I said that here I would be told not to think that way.)

Yes, if you go out in public the way you look is a broadcast message. That is inescapable. Regardless of your intentions it is there and says "Look at me", "Don't look at me", "In your face" or what ever else. As for your other post describing the sending of a message, it is incumbent on both the broadcaster and the receiver to realize the assumptions in the message. If I send out a message that most people are go interpret in a certain way it is my responsibility to realize that. For instance I do not say the word 'cat' if I mean 'dog' because I am aware that a person hearing the word 'cat' is going to assume I am referring to something other than what I mean.

The idea that a person does things to make themselves attractive 'for themselves' is pretty silly. Do they look at themselves in the mirror a lot? Do they sniff themselves often? The point of looking attractive is to get attention. That's the definition of the word. Saying that one dresses up and makes them selves attractive for themselves is like saying "I want to know that you want to look at me but I don't want you to actually look at me."
I dress for myself. I dress in jeans, a t-shirt, a flannel, and docs. Many of my clothes are actually ratty and faded. The don't attract attention. These are comfortable items of clothing for me. I actually attempt to appropriately match colours so as to not attract attention by looking like a clown and sticking out like a sore thumb. If I dress in nice clothes that may attract attention it is because I am trying to attract attention. When I put on cologne it is so I smell nice to other people because I honestly don't notice the scent any more after a couple of minutes.

 

[FayeKane]

This girl's got claws!

No! Not claws. My only weapon is the truth... and it's also my only protection.

To the extent that truth matters, it makes a deadly unstoppable weapon and a transparent impenetrable shield.

All you have to do is live your life consistent with who you really are, then bang! Magic happens.

The only legitimate reason not to steal from the 7-11 isn't "I might get caught" or "the bible says 'thou shalt not steal'". The only legitimate reason not steal from the 7-11 is I'm not a thief.

If Nixon had admitted he screwed up the day after Liddy and Hunt were arrested, he would not have had to resign. And if that toilet homo senator had just quietly been gay and said so decades ago, he wouldn't have had to resign either. Instead, he lied. And look what happened.

The trick is finding an external context in which truth actually matters. I discovered WAY to late that, more often than not, the Real (business) World is not such a place. The RW is a place for, well... "claws".

I don't think HRW deserved that

Okay, here's my ontology, see:

There are three kinds of things; objects, opinions, and mathematics.

Guess which one "I don't think HRW deserved that" is?

I'm glad a woman expressed the opinion that you did.

Ohh, THANK you, Huck! (curtsies) (blushes...)

 

[Huckleberry]

However, it is a rational and moral error to assume to know her intentions or her desires. They are hers alone. You can guess, but you cannot know, and you cannot substitute your assumptions for having to listen to her. Your assumption usurps her voice.

Does this apply only to women? Is it not a rational and moral error for a woman to assume she knows the intentions and desires of a man? If it is, then how can he be held responsible for any discomfort she may feel? When a man feels the need to hide his desire or intentions from a woman does that not usurp his voice?

What I'm hearing is 'I'm tired of guys looking at me when I don't want them to. Since I am a woman men should respect my wishes.'

I disagree with the statement anyway. I think it is possible to know a woman's or a man's desires through eye contact and body language. It can be at least as reliable as if they spoke the words aloud. Intentions are a bit difficult. Maybe intentions are impossible to know until they are acted upon, but one can often guess with some accuracy. It's more than just a shot in the dark.

 

[Cryptonic]

Look, I ogle and stare and drool and all the rest, but listen people... THAT'S BECAUSE I'M BEAUTIFUL! I'm SICK of girls STARING at ME! So, I stare back! And I deliberately drool too!

TAKE THAT, GIRLS!

 

[BobG]

Here is my idea of a simple model of a typical physical communication: a sender encodes an intended message and sends it though a noisy channel to a receiver. The receiver receives the encoded message, along with whatever distortions it picked up along the way, and decodes it into a received message. The receiver does not have access to the intended message, even under the best of circumstances. Encouraging, broadcasting, inducing, and attracting are all properties that the receiver must attribute to the message. The receiver does not know what the sender intended. The receiver does not even know if the sender intended to send a message at all. No?

The comment ((I.e. - a woman wouldn't wear perfume if she weren't trying to attract attention...)) was stated as if it were a fact, when, in fact, it is as assumption that happens to be generally false. A woman who knows how prostitutes in the area typically dress and still dresses like a typical prostitute should expect to attract the attention that prostitutes typically attract. However, it is a rational and moral error to assume to know her intentions or her desires. They are hers alone. You can guess, but you cannot know, and you cannot substitute your assumptions for having to listen to her. Your assumption usurps her voice. That is how people don't hear "no". I suppose that is also how people don't hear "yes". Either way, fooling yourself into believing that you possesses knowledge when you don't is just asking for trouble.

I really like the analogy in the first paragraph. And, the argument about assuming the woman wearing perfume is trying to transmit any type of communication is fair enough.

In fact, perusing dating sites, I'd say it was fairly normal for people of both sexes to either not understand dating or not understand communication. Granted, that's based on the assumption that a person on a dating site is actually looking for the one person that would make having be on a dating site unnecessary - probably a mostly true assumption if you limited it just to the people stating that they're looking for a long term relationship.

Regardless of what they're looking for, most seem to be aiming to attract as many potential dates as possible when setting up their profiles, sending out their e-mails, etc. That just means they're going to spend a lot of time going on dates with random people and they may as well just pick up random people at a nightclub. In fact, a lot seem to think the best process is to just browse photographs and send e-mails to people with the best photographs.

A person that understands communication would do as HRW stated: send out an encoded message that only one special type of person is going to understand. Very few dates, but most of them very close to the type of person you're looking for.

So, when it comes to dress, fragrances, make-up and general appearance, it's entirely possible the woman doesn't have any concept of the idea that's she's even transmitting messages, let alone have any intentions associated with them - especially if you're talking about younger people.

None the less, an awful lot of communication takes place at the subconscious level, no conscious thought required, with body language often making a much stronger statement than a person's words. Regardless of her intentions, she is still transmitting a lot of accurate information about the type of person she'd like to attract, regardless of whether she's interested in attracting anyone at that particular time. And, often, the information she's transmitting is more accurate than the stuff she tells her friends when asked about the things she finds attractive in men.

In fact, the feeling of discomfort that one constantly has to worry about the message they're sending out to random people is slightly misplaced. The discomfort comes in wanting to control transmission so only desired images are transmitted, and real life keeps forcing a person to transmit out too much information about themselves. Regardless of how much a person would like to send out a photoshopped image of themselves, their real image keeps getting broadcast.

 

[BobG]

To stretch the analogy too far, the FCC regulations generally say devices are responsible for their own electromagnetic transmissions and for ensuring that no errant transmissions interferes with other electronic devices

This is why I try to transmit my subliminal messages using spread spectrum techniques. Very resistant to jamming and interference. Of course, the drawback is that power is spread out over such a wide band of frequencies that the signals become undetectable unless the receiver is using the proper PRN code. There might be one or two with the right PRN code, but most people just think I'm strange.

 

[Huckleberry]

TAKE THAT, GIRLS!

Is this the source of your frustration or just the focus of it? I recommend you take this disregard for what women think of you, tone it down a few notches, and then make good on it by actually approaching some women. If you're frustrated because you're not getting laid then fine, be frustrated, but don't take it out on women when you can't even approach them honestly. The only thing stopping you is you. I believe that's the source of your frustration and your focus on women is misguided.

It helps if you can look at a woman as more than just a source of sexual gratification. Some random woman isn't interested in your gratification unless that is also what she is looking for. If you know how to be friends with a woman then there might be some reason for her to be interested in you sexually. So try being friendly, whatever that means to you, without any expectations or deception. If you can do that earnestly then I promise they will warm up to you. Even if deep down you're a complete jerk women will still notice you if you are comfortable in your own skin.

I don't see anything wrong with the way you look at women with your eyes, but I think you may be harming yourself with the distinction you draw between women as people and women as sexual beings. They are one in the same, just like you are.

 

[turbo]

IIf you know how to be friends with a woman then there might be some reason for her to be interested in you sexually. So try being friendly, whatever that means to you, without any expectations or deception.

Good advice. If you are a guy, and you have no good friends who are females (and I don't mean your friends' GFs, but real personal friends) then you are cheating yourself of something fulfilling and valuable. If you have a really good friend who is a female and she is not personally drawn to you, but likes and respects you, she will play match-maker and try to hook you up. It's a whole lot easier to meet women and get to know them, if another woman is mediating and breaking the ice for you.

Want to be a lone-wolf? Could be lonely...

 

[honestrosewater]

So let me get this straight. It's unfair that you can't wear less frumpy, skimpier, perhaps even sluttier clothes than you do because guys might get turned on.

No, that is not what I meant. And scanning your post, I don't see anything that you got right about me. I would be happy to try to clarify things if you can apologize for losing your temper and treating me in a way that you explicitly agreed not to treat anyone here.

Guidelines on Langauge and Attitude:
Foul or hostile language will not be tolerated on Physics Forums. This includes profanity, obscenity, or obvious indecent language; direct personal attacks or insults; snide remarks or phrases that appear to be an attempt to "put down" another member; and other indirect attacks on a member's character or motives.

Please treat all members with respect, even if you do not agree with them.

 

[honestrosewater]

Does this apply only to women? Is it not a rational and moral error for a woman to assume she knows the intentions and desires of a man?

Yes, I think it is an error for anyone to assume that they know what anyone else wants because you simply don't have perfect access to anyone else's thoughts and could be mistaken, and not being open to the possibility that you are mistaken (or even that the person might change their mind) effectively puts you in the position of telling the other person what they want, thus removing their right to decide for themself. I am surprised that this is controversial, especially amongst scientists who are familiar with the limits of certainty and the idea of falsifying assumptions.

If it is, then how can he be held responsible for any discomfort she may feel?

I don't think that he necessarily should be held responsible for any damage done. I think it's complicated and comes down to exercising reasonable care; it makes me think of legal negligence. If you point a gun at someone, i think it's reasonable to expect them to feel threatened. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to feel threatened by your looking at them.

When a man feels the need to hide his desire or intentions from a woman does that not usurp his voice?

I'm not sure what you have in mind. For example?

What I'm hearing is 'I'm tired of guys looking at me when I don't want them to. Since I am a woman men should respect my wishes.'

You're hearing this from who? I already said that my response to people looking at me or checking me out ranges from neutral to positive.

How are they to know what I want? That is the exact point I was arguing about. I tried to clarify once already that I was complaining specifically about people assuming to know what I want from the fact that they find my appearance attractive. And this is a complaint that I am still willing to defend. It's very important to me for a reason that I hopefully can get across.

I specifically disagreed with that last statement. I don't think women should get special treatment. That was the point of this:

A related assumption that seemed to be lurking beneath the surface here is that, when a man and a woman want contradictory things, the gentlemanly thing for the man to do is give into the woman because the woman is necessarily weaker. This kind of gentlemanliness encourages weakness in women. It is really a kick in the balls. Look at a woman like you would look at a man. Her body is her property. She is responsible for taking care of it. Women don't deserve your pity. They deserve your respect, as your fellow men.

How does that sound like I think women deserve pity from men? (A kick in the balls is bad.)

I disagree with the statement anyway. I think it is possible to know a woman's or a man's desires through eye contact and body language. It can be at least as reliable as if they spoke the words aloud. Intentions are a bit difficult. Maybe intentions are impossible to know until they are acted upon, but one can often guess with some accuracy. It's more than just a shot in the dark.

Agreed, a person's appearance is information. I am interested in what you conclude from that information. I wouldn't agree that your conclusion can always be more than a shot in that dark. The data can still be contradictory or inconclusive. Sometimes you have a clear enough signal and sometimes you don't. Even human language is not free from ambiguity, and its expressive power is way beyond that of eye contact or body language. Here is my objection again.

1) It is simpler to ignore self-attraction, which is irrelevant here anyway, so let's say that attraction requires two distinct individuals. i cannot be attractive by myself. The state of me being attractive can only occur when there is another individual involved. Agreed? If so, the statements "when a woman is attractive" or "when a woman dresses attractively" do not make sense because they are incomplete. They need to be "when someone finds a woman attractive" or "when a woman dresses in a way that someone finds attractive" or whathaveyou. The other individual's role needs to be acknowledged. This is an important distinction, so if you disagree or don't see it, please say so.

2) I cannot control when someone else finds me attractive. It is their choice. Or, for the sake of this argument, I would even accept that it is their body's choice or the choice of some combination of their subconscious and conscious systems. Either way, it is not my choice. I cannot stop someone from finding me attractive. I cannot force someone to find me attractive. It is not within my control. I can try to influence them, but the control ultimately lies with them. Agreed?

3) Assume that X implies Y, or however you would like to think of it: X occurring makes Y occur; X being true makes Y true; X causes Y; whatever. If X implies Y, and I cannot control X, then I cannot control Y. Agreed? For example, if the rain makes my grass wet, and I cannot control when it rains, then I cannot control when my grass gets wet. Or if (it is raining) implies (my grass is wet), and I cannot control when (it is raining), then I cannot control when (my grass is wet). And so on. You can say it many ways in English. Is the structure that I am going for clear enough, though?

4) Here is the implication that I find unacceptable:

If someone finds me attractive, then I obviously was trying to attract them because I want sexual attention from them. Or in other words, if someone find me attractive, then I was inviting them to interact with me sexually. Or if someone finds me attractive, I was asking for it.​

Is this implication "X implies Y" clear here, letting X = "someone finds me attractive" and Y = "I want sexual attention from them"?

5) So here is the argument that I see is:

Premise (3): If (X implies Y) and (I cannot control X), then (I cannot control Y).
Premise (4): (Someone finds me attractive) implies (I want sexual attention from them).
Premise (2): I cannot control when someone finds me attractive.
Conclusion: I cannot control when I want sexual attention from someone.​

(Or perhaps this wording is clearer:

Premise (3): If (X implies Y) and (I cannot control X), then (I cannot control Y).
Premise (4): (Someone finds me attractive) implies (I am asking for sexual attention from them).
Premise (2): I cannot control when someone finds me attractive.
Conclusion: I cannot control when I am asking for sexual attention from someone.​

)

That conclusion is unacceptable to me -- completely unacceptable. What I want should be within my control. I accept (2) and (3) as true, so I am forced to not accept (4). (4) is the implication that I was complaining about. It is an implication that others have hinted at and that Bob's comment ("a woman wouldn't wear perfume if she weren't trying to attract attention") made more explicit.

Does this help clarify things at all? Wanting to be clearer makes me want to be more formal, and maybe this is not what works for others, so I can try something else. Do you see that my problem is not with anyone looking or being attracted or acting on that attraction? My problem is with accepting the implication in (4). Do you see why I have a problem with it?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That conclusion is unacceptable to me -- completely unacceptable. What I want should be within my control. I accept (2) and (3) as true, so I am forced to not accept (4). (4) is the implication that I was complaining about. It is an implication that others have hinted at and that Bob's comment ("a woman wouldn't wear perfume if she weren't trying to attract attention") made more explicit.

I would think that your assumption that you are unable to control when people find you attractive is only partly true. It is certainly possible that no matter how you look or dress there will be people who will find you attractive but there are definitely certain looks and manners of dress that are more likely to attract attention and others that are much less likely to attract attention.

Also conclusion 2 is to some degree true. There are many aspects of your body that are for the express purpose of broadcasting the signal that you are a healthy female who would make a desirable mate. You don't really have much control over this unless you would prefer to let yourself go and no longer be a healthy desirable mate. All you can do is attempt to dampen the signal. By wearing attractive clothes or a nice smelling perfume you heighten the signal.

We are animals. You are portraying this as too much of an intellectual issue. As if we have the choice of being non-sexual beings.

Note please that none of us here are saying that others are not responsible for their actions and ability or inability to control their urges. Only that an individual is responsible for their own self and the signals that they give off (whether they have a choice in giving them off or not) and that people who notice those signals are not at fault for anything. They are only taking notice. If they go further and approach you then they are obviously responsible for their actions.

 

[Lancelot59]

I've personally never been caught staring...but I have caught myself when class started to bore me and falling asleep wasn't an option.

 

[Huckleberry]

That conclusion is unacceptable to me -- completely unacceptable. What I want should be within my control.

That conclusion is unacceptable to me also. It isn't incorrect. You could walk around bathed in perfume and dressed like a stripper and guys still wouldn't know if that is directed at anyone in particular. They will think it increases the chances of a positive reaction to sexual interest, so you will receive more of that kind of attention. The decision to accept or reject is still yours, but you can't force people to not be attracted to you no matter how much you want it or think you should be able to control it. It's pure dominance over another person's thoughts. That would be you usurping their voice if you could enforce that behaviour.

If I offer to share some cake with you I'm not telling you that you want cake. You're assuming that I think I know you want cake before I offer it. The assumption here is yours, not anyone elses. If I see you looking at my cake then I might guess you want a piece, but I might just offer out of kindness too.

I'm not sure what you have in mind. For example?

This has been the main point of my argument throughout the thread. Two extreme examples within this thread are the OP and Cryptonic. One can't look at women at all and the other looks with complete disregard. Neither is comfortable approaching a woman. I'm assuming this is because they feel that they have been pre-judged and the outcome of any interaction is already decidedly negative. The woman of their attention is not to blame for this. They have usurped her voice by making the decision for her. Her approval or disapproval becomes irrelevant because she is never given the opportunity to express it.

The original question was facetious because it was meant to point to a flaw in the original statement, so the answer seems contrary as to whose voice is being usurped.

You're hearing this from who? I already said that my response to people looking at me or checking me out ranges from neutral to positive.

...I tried to clarify once already that I was complaining specifically about people assuming to know what I want from the fact that they find my appearance attractive...

Yes, you did say that, but your conclusion states that you should have control over whether you're asking for attention or not, but you admit that nobody knows whether you're asking for their attention. So how can this say anything other than you want control over who gives you attention? Of course you do! Don't we all, but fortunately the decision of who gives us attention belongs to the one who finds us attractive.

However, it is a rational and moral error to assume to know her intentions or her desires. They are hers alone. You can guess, but you cannot know, and you cannot substitute your assumptions for having to listen to her. Your assumption usurps her voice.

Exchange every instance of him/her. If the statement is valid for both sexes then it is contrary to what you believe should be within your control. I don't understand how you could have meant it to be applicable to both sexes if it (edit-confirms an unacceptable conclusion) when it is applicable to men.

I don't think that he necessarily should be held responsible for any damage done. I think it's complicated and comes down to exercising reasonable care; it makes me think of legal negligence. If you point a gun at someone, i think it's reasonable to expect them to feel threatened. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to feel threatened by your looking at them.

I'm not sure how pointing a gun at someone is similar to looking at them. I'm guessing here that even though you don't think it is reasonable to feel threatened when someone looks at you, you still sometimes are. Well, I'd say it is reasonable to be threatened, but not because they are looking at you. For your own safety you have to make a decision based on what you think their intentions may be. Because of this, staring is considered rude, especially the lascivious ogling which communicates a specifically sexual desire. Like it or not, we must all sometimes act on what we think other people's intentions may be. I don't think it is wrong for a guy to ogle. He should, however, be aware that she will likely treat him like a psycho whether he is one or not.

Agreed, a person's appearance is information. I am interested in what you conclude from that information. I wouldn't agree that your conclusion can always be more than a shot in that dark. The data can still be contradictory or inconclusive. Sometimes you have a clear enough signal and sometimes you don't. Even human language is not free from ambiguity, and its expressive power is way beyond that of eye contact or body language.

It isn't always more than a random guess, but it is sometimes. Intentions usually follow desires. Desire isn't too difficult to determine. Intention can be.

I was at a karaoke bar several months ago. I was talking with two women at the table I was at. One of them would hang on my arm and brush her breasts against me if I was talking to the other girl. She kept putting her hand on my shoulder and back. I really didn't believe that this was an accidental behaviour. It seemed clear to me that there was some sexual desire there, but where the intention came from or was leading to I was unsure of. Maybe she was jealous. Maybe she was vain. Maybe she was just plain horny. I don't know. Then she asks what I was doing later. Considering it was almost 2am I felt that there was a good probability that her intentions were to come home with me. I didn't put it to the test, but maybe you'll agree that the chances her intentions were sexual were more than a shot in the dark.

Judging these things is how a guy determines when it is appropriate to hold her hand or put his arm around her waist as they walk. Or maybe it determines the difference between a hug and a kiss at the end of the night. It changes how a man approaches a woman, because waiting for a woman to make a move on a man may take the rest of his life, depending on the woman he attracts and is attracted to.

 

[honestrosewater]

I would think that your assumption that you are unable to control when people find you attractive is only partly true. It is certainly possible that no matter how you look or dress there will be people who will find you attractive but there are definitely certain looks and manners of dress that are more likely to attract attention and others that are much less likely to attract attention.

Yes, I admitted that I can try to influence them. I do try to influence people's perceptions of me, both to avoid and attract attention. The decision and responsibility still ultimately lies with the person who is attracted.

We are animals. You are portraying this as too much of an intellectual issue. As if we have the choice of being non-sexual beings.

We are intellectual animals. Do celibate people not choose to be non-sexual beings? I'm not advocating celibacy, but its existence proves that some people do have that choice.

Note please that none of us here are saying that others are not responsible for their actions and ability or inability to control their urges. Only that an individual is responsible for their own self and the signals that they give off (whether they have a choice in giving them off or not) and that people who notice those signals are not at fault for anything. They are only taking notice. If they go further and approach you then they are obviously responsible for their actions.

Sending a signal is something that you choose to do. Your signal being received by someone else and interpreted by them is not something that you choose to do. It is something that someone else chooses to do, so you are not responsible for it. We cannot control when others find us attractive or creepy or whatever else. You are responsible for taking notice. How can someone else be responsible for you noticing them? It is your choice to be there accepting information.

Also, I am not complaining about noticing or looking or being attracted or approaching. How many times do I need to say this? I am complaining about the implication in (4).

 

[Bourbaki1123]

This has been the main point of my argument throughout the thread. Two extreme examples within this thread are the OP and Cryptonic. One can't look at women at all and the other looks with complete disregard. Neither is comfortable approaching a woman. I'm assuming this is because they feel that they have been pre-judged and the outcome of any interaction is already decidedly negative. The woman of their attention is not to blame for this. They have usurped her voice by making the decision for her. Her approval or disapproval becomes irrelevant because she is never given the opportunity to express it.

That isn't correct. Any woman could approach them at any time whether they are uncomfortable around her or not. I doubt the OP would have minded if that girl came up and asked him for a date.

We are intellectual animals. Do celibate people not choose to be non-sexual beings? I'm not advocating celibacy, but its existence proves that some people do have that choice.

I doubt that most people could become celibate and I doubt that it's healthy.

Sending a signal is something that you choose to do. Your signal being received by someone else and interpreted by them is not something that you choose to do. It is something that someone else chooses to do, so you are not responsible for it. We cannot control when others find us attractive or creepy or whatever else. You are responsible for taking notice. How can someone else be responsible for you noticing them? It is your choice to be there accepting information.

Fallacious. Noticing is not a matter of responsibility, it is a matter of biology and seeing/smelling/hearing what is around you. If a man or a woman notices an attractive person, they do not consciously decide that that person is attractive; they have to exhibit some degree of control to not engage in a natural response like staring or some other inappropriate action. Some, probably most, need to use more control to avoid thinking sexually about that person (though there is no reason to exhibit that degree of control, since there is no damage there).

Also, I am not complaining about noticing or looking or being attracted or approaching. How many times do I need to say this? I am complaining about the implication in (4).

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that most people don't actually think that way, its just that those who do tend to be vociferous douche bags so you are more likely to notice.

 

[FayeKane]

Premise (3): If (X implies Y) and (I cannot control X), then (I cannot control Y).
Premise (4): (Someone finds me attractive) implies (I want sexual attention from them).
Premise (2): I cannot control when someone finds me attractive.
Conclusion: I cannot control when I want sexual attention from someone.

You need to stop that, go someplace where people are nice (like the Unitarian church), and talk to girls in a casual setting.

-- faye

 

[FayeKane]

I would be happy to try to clarify things if you can apologize for losing your temper and treating me in a way that...

Request respectfully declined.

I suggest that if you have something to say, that you say it.

Or don't.

I'm not responsible for your actions, lack of action, decisions, or your emotions.

--faye

 

[honestrosewater]

That conclusion is unacceptable to me also. It isn't incorrect. You could walk around bathed in perfume and dressed like a stripper and guys still wouldn't know if that is directed at anyone in particular. They will think it increases the chances of a positive reaction to sexual interest, so you will receive more of that kind of attention. The decision to accept or reject is still yours,

This is all I was saying. I don't understand why this was so difficult.

but you can't force people to not be attracted to you no matter how much you want it or think you should be able to control it. It's pure dominance over another person's thoughts. That would be you usurping their voice if you could enforce that behaviour.

I know I can't control when others are attracted to me. That is exactly what I said. I never said that I wanted to stop anyone from being attracted to me. What makes you think I want this? I have said over and over again that I am not complaining about people being attracted. I am complaining about the implication in (4).

If I offer to share some cake with you I'm not telling you that you want cake. You're assuming that I think I know you want cake before I offer it. The assumption here is yours, not anyone elses. If I see you looking at my cake then I might guess you want a piece, but I might just offer out of kindness too.

I don't get it. Your attention is cake? Haha, I am so lost. Bob said "a woman wouldn't wear perfume if she weren't trying to attract attention". This is the implication that I am complaining about. I am complaining about it because someone expressed it as if it were true. I do not assume that everyone who is attracted to me or shows me attention believes this implication.

Yes, you did say that, but your conclusion states that you should have control over whether you're asking for attention or not, but you admit that nobody knows whether you're asking for their attention. So how can this say anything other than you want control over who gives you attention?

That is an interesting point. I will think about that. I was having a hard time finding the right expression there, and it never did seem right. I think the problem is that asking is still a two-person relation. So wanting control over asking is wanting control over both individuals involved in the relation. I actually only want control over my role in the asking, but I am not sure exactly how to express or untangle this. I already feel like I have talked this to death, so... a clarification on this will have to wait.

Exchange every instance of him/her. If the statement is valid for both sexes then it is contrary to what you believe should be within your control.

How so? I can't think of anything that I would change about anything that I've said if any of the sexes were changed. I actually try to avoid gender-specific language when I can make it work. I stuck with the man/woman assignments were because they were already there, and once you start describing extended scenarios involving unnamed people, the English structures get cumbersome and confusing (if someone does something to someone else, but the second person wants the first person to ask them, then the first person should...). It's easier to distinguish them by letting them be different sexes and using English's gender-specific pronouns. I was torn on this, though, and maybe the convenience wasn't worth the confusion. I am happy to use person P and person Q or whatever gender-neutral names you like.

I'm not sure how pointing a gun at someone is similar to looking at them.

I was using it for contrast. Pointing a gun at someone is considered a threat by reasonable people in our society. By contrast, looking at someone is not.

I'm guessing here that even though you don't think it is reasonable to feel threatened when someone looks at you, you still sometimes are.

Not by their looking alone. If I am walking down a desolate road at night alone, and I see a car approaching me, I am going to keep a safe distance from the car despite not having any information about the person or people inside of it because I recognize a potentially dangerous situation. My trying to stay safe is not the same as feeling threatened. The former is proactive; the latter is reactive. I am proactive with people. I don't feel threatened often because I proactively avoid dangerous situations. I don't assume that anyone intends me harm just because they look at me, and I don't feel threatened by mere looking either. I don't know what it sounds like by now, but I am friendly with people, and I enjoy being friendly. I smile at everyone. I don't sneer at anyone. The worst that anyone gets from me is a half-smile when they sneer at or ignore me.

I would feel threatened if someone started following me or was looking in my window. Actually, my last neighbor used to look up into my livingroom and bedroom window often. He took his garbage to the dumpster several times a day. (I think it was to get away from his girlfriend's bellowing.) He was quiet and a little creepy-mysterious and never said hello when I said hello to him, but I don't recall ever feeling threatened by him. He didn't do anything that seemed threatening. He was more curious than aggressive.

Well, I'd say it is reasonable to be threatened, but not because they are looking at you. For your own safety you have to make a decision based on what you think their intentions may be. Because of this, staring is considered rude, especially the lascivious ogling which communicates a specifically sexual desire. Like it or not, we must all sometimes act on what we think other people's intentions may be. I don't think it is wrong for a guy to ogle. He should, however, be aware that she will likely treat him like a psycho whether he is one or not.

That sounds reasonable.

It isn't always more than a random guess, but it is sometimes. Intentions usually follow desires. Desire isn't too difficult to determine. Intention can be.

I was at a karaoke bar several months ago. I was talking with two women at the table I was at. One of them would hang on my arm and brush her breasts against me if I was talking to the other girl. She kept putting her hand on my shoulder and back. I really didn't believe that this was an accidental behaviour. It seemed clear to me that there was some sexual desire there, but where the intention came from or was leading to I was unsure of. Maybe she was jealous. Maybe she was vain. Maybe she was just plain horny. I don't know. Then she asks what I was doing later. Considering it was almost 2am I felt that there was a good probability that her intentions were to come home with me. I didn't put it to the test, but maybe you'll agree that the chances her intentions were sexual were more than a shot in the dark.

Judging these things is how a guy determines when it is appropriate to hold her hand or put his arm around her waist as they walk. Or maybe it determines the difference between a hug and a kiss at the end of the night. It changes how a man approaches a woman, because waiting for a woman to make a move on a man may take the rest of his life, depending on the woman he attracts and is attracted to.

Agreed. People communicate by unofficial conventions, and communication is tricky, but it can be very successful. I still think that I probably have no major disagreements with you or TSA, nor probably with most other people that have participated in this thread, about what is reasonable social behavior. You seem like reasonable people. My complaint is with the implication in (4) becoming a convention. I still think that it is a completely unfair and unenforceable rule. And it also happens to be factually untrue.TSA,
That reminds me, why do I sometimes light scented candles when I take a bath alone? You can't possibly think that it is to attract others. There aren't even any windows in my bathroom. I do it for the same reason that I sometimes put on lotion that I enjoy the smell of when I get out. And why I wear a robe in a color that I find attractive, made of a material that I love feeling against my skin. Surrounding myself with things that I find attractive makes me happy. It is not a silly notion that someone would want to find themselves attractive. People are forever trying to make their environments attractive, and we are a constant part of our environment.

 

[honestrosewater]

Fallacious. Noticing is not a matter of responsibility, it is a matter of biology and seeing/smelling/hearing what is around you. If a man or a woman notices an attractive person, they do not consciously decide that that person is attractive; they have to exhibit some degree of control to not engage in a natural response like staring or some other inappropriate action. Some, probably most, need to use more control to avoid thinking sexually about that person (though there is no reason to exhibit that degree of control, since there is no damage there).

Bleeding to death is also not a matter of responsibility; it is a matter of physiology. But if I know that shooting a person will (or reasonably could) lead to them bleeding to death, and I choose to shoot a person, then I am responsible if that person bleeds to death as a result of my shooting them. No?

So my thinking is like this: A person noticing things is responsible for noticing them because it was their choice to be there, knowing that their being there would lead to them noticing things. Holy baloney. I feel like laughing and crying at the same time. It's of almost no consequence that someone noticed something, but they still are responsible for noticing it. They let their body do it. They knew their body would do it. Noticing is a function of what they are, so if they choose to stay alive and have a functioning nervous system, they are choosing to notice things. It doesn't matter that they don't necessarily know in advance what they will notice. They know in advance that they won't know this.

If I don't want to see something, I can close my eyes. If I don't want to hear something, I can plug my ears. I can leave. I can kill myself. This is something within our conscious control. What is the problem with taking responsibility for noticing things?

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that most people don't actually think that way, its just that those who do tend to be vociferous douche bags so you are more likely to notice.

I'm not attributing it to most people. The statement was made in this thread. I responded to it. That is how this discussion over assumptions started.

 

[DaveC426913]

One of them would hang on my arm and brush her breasts against me if I was talking to the other girl. She kept putting her hand on my shoulder and back. I really didn't believe that this was an accidental behaviour. It seemed clear to me that there was some sexual desire there... Maybe she was just plain horny. I don't know. Then she asks what I was doing later. Considering it was almost 2am I felt that there was a good probability that her intentions were to come home with me.

I didn't put it to the test

*whack*

You have let all men down, everywhere.

 

[Lancelot59]

I actually have to agree to some point, although it was his choice to do so. I can't see myself just heading off with some random person.

 

[DaveC426913]

I can't see myself just heading off with some random person.

Random person?

"One of them would hang on my arm and brush her breasts against me"
"She kept putting her hand on my shoulder and back."
"Maybe she was just plain horny. "

How much better does he need to know her?

 

[Lancelot59]

I see your point. You might not agree with what he chose do to, but at least respect his decision.

Personally, I guess if I had been talking to the person for a while and they were up for it, why not have some fun? It really depends on a lot of different factors.

 

[honestrosewater]

So I have been trying to explain how the situation appears from the perspective of someone receiving sexual attention, but I check people out habitually, so I wanted to try looking from that perspective.

Since I started talking about this a few days ago, whenever I look at a person (it almost always is a woman (I think because they tend to be better to look at for some reason (a lot of men do not dress well or move with any rhythm or grace (also, they tend to dress very similarly, so there is not as much interesting variety)))), this voice goes off in my head reminding me not to assume that she wants me to look at her. The surprising thing is that it made me realize that I do sometimes assume that the person I am looking at wants me to look at them. It depends mostly on some combination of pride, confidence, and modesty that I pick up on from them. It's such a private, natural, subtle assumption that it never stood out before. If something makes me think that a person doesn't want me checking them out, I stop. That alone means that when I am checking someone out, it's because I think that they at least don't mind. But a lot of the time, there is a dialogue that goes on in my head. It's really a stupid, private, one-way dialogue (which might not count as a dialogue) that often involves words like "baby" and "fine", perhaps a comment about shaking something, some nod of approval, and so on. It's not as creepy as it might sound, though it probably is stupider than it sounds. It's just commentary. And this commentary goes on as if the other person is participating in it just by being there. Is this normal? I am used to being odd, so it wouldn't surprise me if it isn't.

But this does make me realize that maybe my talk about the assumptions that you are making and who is participating to what degree in an encounter has meant different things to us. Perhaps it would be clearer to say that I am not trying to change anything that is going on inside of your head. I think it's none of my business what is going on there, and it's not my place to tell you what should be going on there. Think whatever you want to think privately. I am just saying that it is only fair to the other person to remember that it is all in your head, and all that they have done is walk past you.

Maybe I am still off base.

 

[Huckleberry]

*whack*

You have let all men down, everywhere.

Sorry to let you down, Dave. It's not like that sort of thing happens often or anything. The situation was complicated.

I went there with a female friend in her car. I was talking with two women. The one whose actions I described I had met a few times before. She wasn't a complete stranger to me. I was interested in the other girl across the table, a nice looking, tall, black woman. The girl that was fondling me ended up leaving. The black girl, whom I had never met before, found out that I had come with another woman and she apologized for talking to me. I told her we were just friends, but I don't think she believed me. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure she was wrong.

I ended up going on a date with the black girl. We went to a fair on the waterfront and a storm blew in. We ended up spending an hour under a bridge waiting for the rain to stop while winds were blowing sawdust in our faces and hair. Then we went to a bar. She wanted to talk about relationships and money and children. I just wanted to die. Those things are all good and whatnot, but I'm not even thinking of them. I should just fill out a relationship resume and carry it with me on the rare occasion that I get a date. When a 30 something woman asks any of these questions I just hand the form to her and say "Here you go. This is what you want to know." I know people got their standards, but what I can provide for her says nothing about who I am. The feeling I get is how I imagine a woman must feel if a guy judges her only on her appearance. It's just like me to turn everything around and I think to myself "What if I can't provide or we can't have children?" Then there's a mountain of problems on the way. I saw my parents go through that and I will avoid it at all costs. I shut down for the night and haven't seen her since. She sent me invitations for twitter and facebook and one website she runs, but she never responded to my mail. Not sure what's up with that, but I'm not interested in joining those websites. I guess if she's interested she'll get in touch. She's an intelligent, attractive, ambitious, kind and funny woman. She's a real catch. The girls got options. I'm sure she'll be fine with or without me, probably better off without.

If I actually had a plan for my future then I'm sure I'd be married to a great woman and we'd have a bunch of beautiful kids running around. Instead I live day to day. The women are there, but it is more like instant meals than grandma's cookin'. It's just not the same, and though Hank Moody is my hero, I'm not a huge fan of casual sex. It does mean something to me, even though there have been times I swore it didn't. I'm finding myself attracted to younger women who won't press as hard for marriage or children and financial stability; women who think it might be a good idea to jump in a car and just drive around for a summer. I'm a little afraid that one day I'll wake up and I'll be that creepy, old, lonely guy still staring at college girls. Though I guess if I could get them to stare back then even that wouldn't be so bad.

 

[Galteeth]

Sorry to let you down, Dave. It's not like that sort of thing happens often or anything. The situation was complicated.

I went there with a female friend in her car. I was talking with two women. The one whose actions I described I had met a few times before. She wasn't a complete stranger to me. I was interested in the other girl across the table, a nice looking, tall, black woman. The girl that was fondling me ended up leaving. The black girl, whom I had never met before, found out that I had come with another woman and she apologized for talking to me. I told her we were just friends, but I don't think she believed me. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure she was wrong.

I ended up going on a date with the black girl. We went to a fair on the waterfront and a storm blew in. We ended up spending an hour under a bridge waiting for the rain to stop while winds were blowing sawdust in our faces and hair. Then we went to a bar. She wanted to talk about relationships and money and children. I just wanted to die. Those things are all good and whatnot, but I'm not even thinking of them. I should just fill out a relationship resume and carry it with me on the rare occasion that I get a date. When a 30 something woman asks any of these questions I just hand the form to her and say "Here you go. This is what you want to know." I know people got their standards, but what I can provide for her says nothing about who I am. The feeling I get is how I imagine a woman must feel if a guy judges her only on her appearance. It's just like me to turn everything around and I think to myself "What if I can't provide or we can't have children?" Then there's a mountain of problems on the way. I saw my parents go through that and I will avoid it at all costs. I shut down for the night and haven't seen her since. She sent me invitations for twitter and facebook and one website she runs, but she never responded to my mail. Not sure what's up with that, but I'm not interested in joining those websites. I guess if she's interested she'll get in touch. She's an intelligent, attractive, ambitious, kind and funny woman. She's a real catch. The girls got options. I'm sure she'll be fine with or without me, probably better off without.

If I actually had a plan for my future then I'm sure I'd be married to a great woman and we'd have a bunch of beautiful kids running around. Instead I live day to day. The women are there, but it is more like instant meals than grandma's cookin'. It's just not the same, and though Hank Moody is my hero, I'm not a huge fan of casual sex. It does mean something to me, even though there have been times I swore it didn't. I'm finding myself attracted to younger women who won't press as hard for marriage or children and financial stability; women who think it might be a good idea to jump in a car and just drive around for a summer. I'm a little afraid that one day I'll wake up and I'll be that creepy, old, lonely guy still staring at college girls. Though I guess if I could get them to stare back then even that wouldn't be so bad.

This thread has taken a turn for the literary! I'm 25, and dig college girls. And when I'm 65 I'll still dig college girls. It's biology man.