How to Stop Being a Nice Guy. Thoughts?

[chevalier]

Two exceptions actually, though don’t ask me why:

There has been some interesting discussion. I think its coming back to that old expectation for women to be responsible for managing men’s feelings which I think can be found in other areas of life. It’s definitely something to be challenged and questioned, ie why can’t men who intimidate women on public transport take responsibility for their actions instead of expecting the woman to let them down gently and protect their ego?

No one here suggested women should be responsible for managing men’s feelings. Since it’s quite probable you’re referring to me, my suggestion is that other people’s feelings aren’t free to completely disregard when we feel potentially threatened by them (regardless of respective sexes or whether sexuality is involved or an unrelated threat, e.g. to property, or purely physical violence) or when we simply don’t like them or what they are saying or proposing (just like a man’s not free to just tell another man to sod off versus politely declining a drink, ride or conversation or whatever). This is not in any way about a woman being expected to protect a man’s ego but only about a woman, just because of being a woman, is not being free to become a sort of loose cannon the moment she registers a potential yellow flag somewhere that could potentially develop into a threat or offends her sensibilities. Just like I can’t shout ‘you, stop right there’ if I see a larger man approaching in a tone of voice suggesting he’s a criminal or somehow my social ‘inferior’ just because I’m white collar and he’s blue or some other nonsense reason; chances are he just needs some light for his cigarette, or directions. Chances are my hand is already in my pocket, wrapping around a heavy bunch of keys just in case, but that doesn’t give me the right to already judge that dude (categorize him as a con/mugger) or talk trash to him or about him (e.g. tell him he probably is all that). And obviously any subjective offense that I might feel about the very idea of someone from a less white, educated, wealthy, clean or otherwise ‘good’ background daring to suggest that we might have something in common (and we do, we’re cousins through Adam and Eve, though a lot of times ‘removed’) is obviously something that I should keep to myself, even if I felt that sort of thing — shame on me if I did. Likewise shame on me for cracking jokes that he didn’t have the quick wit understand or talking to him like I can actually order him around. And that latter is a frequent way of women talking to or about men, though sometimes that’s actually caused by a traditional upbringing rather than third or fourth or whichever wave it is right now.

In fact, it is also your way of talking when you mention ‘managing men’s feelings’. I’m sorry, but nobody has asked to be managed by you, feelings or otherwise. The very suggestion is insulting, and yes, a man has just as much of a right to not be insulted by a woman as a woman by a man. Being female does not give you a right to talk about ‘managing men’, nor even to talk about their feelings dismissively for that matter. Why? Because please consider that ‘do unto others as you would be done unto’ comes straight from the Bible and includes talking, not just physically doing things. And I don’t think it’s an unwarranted speculation to think that you’d be quite worked up yourself if a man started to talk about having to manage you (notably because you can’t manage yourself or somehow on some level allegedly want to be managed by him). And it’s only right that you would be worked up if that happened, but please consider it works both ways. This is kinda all that I’ve been saying throughout that incendiary discussion before I had to bail out because the rampant accusations and diagnoses and other ad hominems (which I’m not even going to reply to, nothing has changed on this front) got way out of hand.

It’s only up to you whether you will twist this into another imaginary attack that isn’t there or actually stop and think and maybe see some reason and common ground in it and take it from there, so give it a think before replying.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Let’s make an exception:

No, not at all, I agree with you actually.

No, I make a point of making it clear (though it still gets missed) that I don’t say people should actually go with strangers, stay with strangers, accept gifts from them etc. What I am doing — and which is making some people livid — is objecting to combining reasonable precautions with gratuitous totalistic judgmenets of a person’s character based on one’s own interpretation of a single thing, even though it might be a faux pas (in other words, how quickly it takes to categorize a person as assuredly being a scumbag and what thin basis that happens), or with a sense of entitlement to treat that person as trash. I never argue in favour of any trest toward in the persons mentioned in the hypotheticals, but I always argue against judging them (e.g. categorizing them as probable rapists or as someone void of self control because they spend a minute or two arguing with someone who is trying to do something dangerous) or talking trash to them.

Again, I agree with you. Still, in the examples that were discussed in this threat I found both the dialogues and the narrative to be objectionable in terms of showing contempt and superiority.

No disagreement. However, this is different from:

‘Nice weather, innit?’ or ‘That is a good book you are reading’ or something else not particularly brilliant or inviting but not particularly invasive either
‘Look, you need to go away before I start shouting.’
‘What? Where did you get the—’ / ‘What are you impl—’
‘Aaaaa! Someone arrest him!’

Security arrives, guy’s cuffed, cops arrive, guy’s charged. Employer/school is pressured by an activist group, guy loses his job/scholarship. Prosecutor gets pressure from activist groups/impending election, charges go through. Judge faces the same pressure and jury is always a coinflip but quite impressionable and sympathetic to victims and prosecutors by default, so guy gets a conviction and quite possibly a hefty sentence just to make the propaganda point that yeah, we take such things very seriously here. CAF thread is started, guy gets written off as an obvious scumbag & lowlife, Chev objects, et voila Chev’s a rapist too. The same happens at a crim law conference where a bunch of people of either sex privately agree but, of course, nobody will take the lectern and actually say that out loud. Actually I was identified as myself being a ‘potential rapist’ by a liberal activist once (yup) for suggesting that the cure for our current societal problem of getting it through to people that ‘no means no’ wouldn’t be complete without also teaching people to speak in a way that yes means yes and no means no. Liberal logic. Sigh. If you don’t offer total enthusiastic affirmation fast enough, then you’re enemy, a heretic to burn. And just like in the middle ages, where a charge of sodomy (or paedophilia or whatever) nicely rounded out the typical indictment for heresy, so does it modernly feel attractive to brand anyone who does not 100% enthusiastically and immediately agree with Nth Wave’s agenda as being rapist material.

Again. Do you think you are doing a poor job of communicating your view? Or do you just think that everyone else is wrong and you have got this whole social thing figured out?

I don’t feel better after your “exception”

 

[Xantippe]

No, I make a point of making it clear (though it still gets missed) that I don’t say people should actually go with strangers, stay with strangers, accept gifts from them etc. What I am doing — and which is making some people livid — is objecting to combining reasonable precautions with gratuitous totalistic judgmenets of a person’s character based on one’s own interpretation of a single thing, even though it might be a faux pas (in other words, how quickly it takes to categorize a person as assuredly being a scumbag and what thin basis that happens), or with a sense of entitlement to treat that person as trash. I never argue in favour of any trest toward in the persons mentioned in the hypotheticals, but I always argue against judging them (e.g. categorizing them as probable rapists or as someone void of self control because they spend a minute or two arguing with someone who is trying to do something dangerous) or talking trash to them.

Again, I agree with you. Still, in the examples that were discussed in this threat I found both the dialogues and the narrative to be objectionable in terms of showing contempt and superiority.

No disagreement. However, this is different from:

**‘Nice weather, innit?’ or ‘That is a good book you are reading’ or something else not particularly brilliant or inviting but not particularly invasive either
‘Look, you need to go away before I start shouting.’
‘What? Where did you get the—’ / ‘What are you impl—’
‘Aaaaa! Someone arrest him!’
**
Security arrives, guy’s cuffed, cops arrive, guy’s charged. Employer/school is pressured by an activist group, guy loses his job/scholarship. Prosecutor gets pressure from activist groups/impending election, charges go through. Judge faces the same pressure and jury is always a coinflip but quite impressionable and sympathetic to victims and prosecutors by default, so guy gets a conviction and quite possibly a hefty sentence just to make the propaganda point that yeah, we take such things very seriously here. CAF thread is started, guy gets written off as an obvious scumbag & lowlife, Chev objects, et voila Chev’s a rapist too. The same happens at a crim law conference where a bunch of people of either sex privately agree but, of course, nobody will take the lectern and actually say that out loud. Actually I was identified as myself being a ‘potential rapist’ by a liberal activist once (yup) for suggesting that the cure for our current societal problem of getting it through to people that ‘no means no’ wouldn’t be complete without also teaching people to speak in a way that **yes means yes and no means no. **Liberal logic. Sigh. If you don’t offer total enthusiastic affirmation fast enough, then you’re enemy, a heretic to burn. And just like in the middle ages, where a charge of sodomy (or paedophilia or whatever) nicely rounded out the typical indictment for heresy, so does it modernly feel attractive to brand anyone who does not 100% enthusiastically and immediately agree with Nth Wave’s agenda as being rapist material.

1. It doesn’t need to be a totalistic judgment. But one does need to make judgments as to whether one is going to talk to the person–a choice has to be made.

The person starting the conversation does not have the right to a command conversational performance. I know you were complaining about that person getting treated as a “servant,” but that is essentially what they are asking of the person that they are chatting up. The initiator expects that they get to have a conversation with that person (a complete stranger), no matter what the desires or plans of that person.

That’s part of why I see this dynamic as “rape-y.”

I think you are miscategorizing who in this situation is operating with a sense of entitlement.

1. I feel like in real life, there would be a LOT of dialog before anybody mentioned police.

I think you underestimate the amount of garbage that women normally put up with before contacting authorities.

Do you even have a newspaper article with your scenario? It’s like science fiction–that just does not happen in the US. For one thing, the police take a LONG time to come, so the guy would have ample time to scoot off before the police arrived. In real life, the guy would get at most a warning.

Look, it’s common for people to get just a few months in prison for actual documented rape (see Brock Turner–out in 3 months after being caught by two witnesses sexually assaulting an unconscious woman)–your scenario is ridiculous.

1. Let’s apply your logic to buying a car.

You walk into a dealership and the dealer starts writing out a contract for you to buy a car, forges your signature, and voila–you have bought a car! You never said no, right?

Surely it makes a lot more sense (in a situation as momentous as sex or buying a car) to have a lot more safeguards to the situation and to make sure that the person is actually saying yes to sex or yes to buying a car.

Also, why do we want to make fornication easier and less of a hassle?

1. I don’t feel like you have a strong enough sense of respect for consent, personal space, and personal autonomy.

This is probably scaring off a lot of good women.

 

[DarkLight]

‘Nice weather, innit?’ or ‘That is a good book you are reading’ or something else not particularly brilliant or inviting but not particularly invasive either
‘Look, you need to go away before I start shouting.’
‘What? Where did you get the—’ / ‘What are you impl—’
‘Aaaaa! Someone arrest him!’

Security arrives, guy’s cuffed, cops arrive, guy’s charged. Employer/school is pressured by an activist group, guy loses his job/scholarship. Prosecutor gets pressure from activist groups/impending election, charges go through. Judge faces the same pressure and jury is always a coinflip but quite impressionable and sympathetic to victims and prosecutors by default, so guy gets a conviction and quite possibly a hefty sentence just to make the propaganda point that yeah, we take such things very seriously here. CAF thread is started, guy gets written off as an obvious scumbag & lowlife, Chev objects, et voila Chev’s a rapist too. The same happens at a crim law conference where a bunch of people of either sex privately agree but, of course, nobody will take the lectern and actually say that out loud. Actually I was identified as myself being a ‘potential rapist’ by a liberal activist once (yup) for suggesting that the cure for our current societal problem of getting it through to people that ‘no means no’ wouldn’t be complete without also teaching people to speak in a way that yes means yes and no means no. Liberal logic. Sigh. If you don’t offer total enthusiastic affirmation fast enough, then you’re enemy, a heretic to burn. And just like in the middle ages, where a charge of sodomy (or paedophilia or whatever) nicely rounded out the typical indictment for heresy, so does it modernly feel attractive to brand anyone who does not 100% enthusiastically and immediately agree with Nth Wave’s agenda as being rapist material.

I have never even seen or heard of this happening. And no one in this thread has suggested anything even remotely like this. All we’re saying is that we want to be able to say “I’d like to read now please” or “I’d like to listen to my headphones” or “I’m not really in the mood for conversation, thanks” without being treated as stuck-up female dogs who are giving offense by not giving in to a man’s desire to talk to us. (And yes, getting called something like that for saying you don’t want to engage in conversation is not an uncommon happening.)

 

[chevalier]

Again. Do you think you are doing a poor job of communicating your view? Or do you just think that everyone else is wrong and you have got this whole social thing figured out?

I don’t feel better after your “exception”

I’m sorry, but that post wasn’t written for you, so making you feel better was not my goal. I certainly wish you the best in that area, as well as any other, but at the end of the day how you feel is your own responsibility. My only suggestion is that you may want to let some steam off at the gym or shooting range, take a walk, have a glass of whisky, whatever works for you. After that we can start talking, in PM or a new thread, if you’re even interested and I rather doubt, when you drop the sarcasm, hostility and contemptuous tone, which does you no credit, but not before.

If anyone would like to continue the discussion with me, whether to agree with something I said or try to convince me to your point of view (or any other reason, really), then please do so by sending me a private message. Anyone is welcome to. Aggressive PMs, threats, name-calling etc. will go straight to the moderators, though.

Hope this off-topic discussion can now die in peace.

 

[Xantippe]

I have never even seen or heard of this happening. And no one in this thread has suggested anything even remotely like this. All we’re saying is that we want to be able to say “I’d like to read now please” or “I’d like to listen to my headphones” or “I’m not really in the mood for conversation, thanks” without being treated as stuck-up female dogs who are giving offense by not giving in to a man’s desire to talk to us. (And yes, getting called something like that for saying you don’t want to engage in conversation is not an uncommon happening.)

…and probably getting off pretty easy.

 

[Sarcelle]

Two exceptions actually, though don’t ask me why:

No one here suggested women should be responsible for managing men’s feelings. Since it’s quite probable you’re referring to me, my suggestion is that other people’s feelings aren’t free to completely disregard when we feel potentially threatened by them (regardless of respective sexes or whether sexuality is involved or an unrelated threat, e.g. to property, or purely physical violence) or when we simply don’t like them or what they are saying or proposing (just like a man’s not free to just tell another man to sod off versus politely declining a drink, ride or conversation or whatever). This is not in any way about a woman being expected to protect a man’s ego but only about a woman, just because of being a woman, is not being free to become a sort of loose cannon the moment she registers a potential yellow flag somewhere that could potentially develop into a threat or offends her sensibilities. Just like I can’t shout ‘you, stop right there’ if I see a larger man approaching in a tone of voice suggesting he’s a criminal or somehow my social ‘inferior’ just because I’m white collar and he’s blue or some other nonsense reason; chances are he just needs some light for his cigarette, or directions. Chances are my hand is already in my pocket, wrapping around a heavy bunch of keys just in case, but that doesn’t give me the right to already judge that dude (categorize him as a con/mugger) or talk trash to him or about him (e.g. tell him he probably is all that). And obviously any subjective offense that I might feel about the very idea of someone from a less white, educated, wealthy, clean or otherwise ‘good’ background daring to suggest that we might have something in common (and we do, we’re cousins through Adam and Eve, though a lot of times ‘removed’) is obviously something that I should keep to myself, even if I felt that sort of thing — shame on me if I did. Likewise shame on me for cracking jokes that he didn’t have the quick wit understand or talking to him like I can actually order him around. And that latter is a frequent way of women talking to or about men, though sometimes that’s actually caused by a traditional upbringing rather than third or fourth or whichever wave it is right now.

In fact, it is also your way of talking when you mention ‘managing men’s feelings’. I’m sorry, but nobody has asked to be managed by you, feelings or otherwise. The very suggestion is insulting, and yes, a man has just as much of a right to not be insulted by a woman as a woman by a man. Being female does not give you a right to talk about ‘managing men’, nor even to talk about their feelings dismissively for that matter. Why? Because please consider that ‘do unto others as you would be done unto’ comes straight from the Bible and includes talking, not just physically doing things. And I don’t think it’s an unwarranted speculation to think that you’d be quite worked up yourself if a man started to talk about having to manage you (notably because you can’t manage yourself or somehow on some level allegedly want to be managed by him). And it’s only right that you would be worked up if that happened, but please consider it works both ways. This is kinda all that I’ve been saying throughout that incendiary discussion before I had to bail out because the rampant accusations and diagnoses and other ad hominems (which I’m not even going to reply to, nothing has changed on this front) got way out of hand.

It’s only up to you whether you will twist this into another imaginary attack that isn’t there or actually stop and think and maybe see some reason and common ground in it and take it from there, so give it a think before replying.

Has anyone on this thread advocating treating anyone with contempt? You seem to bring up this point again and again somehow convinced that we here are doing it and are for it?

We are merely describing our experiences with creepy persistent men, yet you somehow disregard it and insist that our caution is equivalent to treating someone with contempt.

 

[Xantippe]

Two exceptions actually, though don’t ask me why:

No one here suggested women should be responsible for managing men’s feelings. Since it’s quite probable you’re referring to me, my suggestion is that other people’s feelings aren’t free to completely disregard when we feel potentially threatened by them (regardless of respective sexes or whether sexuality is involved or an unrelated threat, e.g. to property, or purely physical violence) or when we simply don’t like them or what they are saying or proposing (just like a man’s not free to just tell another man to sod off versus politely declining a drink, ride or conversation or whatever). This is not in any way about a woman being expected to protect a man’s ego but only about a woman, just because of being a woman, is not being free to become a sort of loose cannon the moment she registers a potential yellow flag somewhere that could potentially develop into a threat or offends her sensibilities. Just like I can’t shout ‘you, stop right there’ if I see a larger man approaching in a tone of voice suggesting he’s a criminal or somehow my social ‘inferior’ just because I’m white collar and he’s blue or some other nonsense reason; chances are he just needs some light for his cigarette, or directions. Chances are my hand is already in my pocket, wrapping around a heavy bunch of keys just in case, but that doesn’t give me the right to already judge that dude (categorize him as a con/mugger) or talk trash to him or about him (e.g. tell him he probably is all that). And obviously any subjective offense that I might feel about the very idea of someone from a less white, educated, wealthy, clean or otherwise ‘good’ background daring to suggest that we might have something in common (and we do, we’re cousins through Adam and Eve, though a lot of times ‘removed’) is obviously something that I should keep to myself, even if I felt that sort of thing — shame on me if I did. Likewise shame on me for cracking jokes that he didn’t have the quick wit understand or talking to him like I can actually order him around. And that latter is a frequent way of women talking to or about men, though sometimes that’s actually caused by a traditional upbringing rather than third or fourth or whichever wave it is right now.

In fact, it is also your way of talking when you mention ‘managing men’s feelings’. I’m sorry, but nobody has asked to be managed by you, feelings or otherwise. The very suggestion is insulting, and yes, a man has just as much of a right to not be insulted by a woman as a woman by a man. Being female does not give you a right to talk about ‘managing men’, nor even to talk about their feelings dismissively for that matter. Why? Because please consider that ‘do unto others as you would be done unto’ comes straight from the Bible and includes talking, not just physically doing things. And I don’t think it’s an unwarranted speculation to think that you’d be quite worked up yourself if a man started to talk about having to manage you (notably because you can’t manage yourself or somehow on some level allegedly want to be managed by him). And it’s only right that you would be worked up if that happened, but please consider it works both ways. This is kinda all that I’ve been saying throughout that incendiary discussion before I had to bail out because the rampant accusations and diagnoses and other ad hominems (which I’m not even going to reply to, nothing has changed on this front) got way out of hand.

It’s only up to you whether you will twist this into another imaginary attack that isn’t there or actually stop and think and maybe see some reason and common ground in it and take it from there, so give it a think before replying.

I think “do unto others” also applies to stuff like–don’t scare innocent people, don’t annoy people, don’t treat grown adults as if they were children, don’t unnecessarily create awkward social situations, etc.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

No disagreement. However, this is different from:

‘Nice weather, innit?’ or ‘That is a good book you are reading’ or something else not particularly brilliant or inviting but not particularly invasive either
‘Look, you need to go away before I start shouting.’
‘What? Where did you get the—’ / ‘What are you impl—’
‘Aaaaa! Someone arrest him!’

Security arrives, guy’s cuffed, cops arrive, guy’s charged. Employer/school is pressured by an activist group, guy loses his job/scholarship. Prosecutor gets pressure from activist groups/impending election, charges go through. Judge faces the same pressure and jury is always a coinflip but quite impressionable and sympathetic to victims and prosecutors by default, so guy gets a conviction and quite possibly a hefty sentence just to make the propaganda point that yeah, we take such things very seriously here.

1. No one advocated behaving that way. Ever. But you’ve insisted that the 18 year old calling DL sexy needs the benefit of the doubt or that she’s rude for shutting down unwanted conversations with strange men in favor of reading.
2. Aren’t you a lawyer? Think about how stupid your scenario looks from a real world legal perspective. I scream at someone to get away from me. Suddenly, police arrive out of nowhere, arrest a man on no charges, charge him with something terrible in the absence of a victim, witnesses to a crime (a woman shouting is not a crime), the state decides to prosecute a victimless, evidenceless case, lock him up for a “hefty sentence” in the absence of any physical harm, and in the meantime, his face is plastered everywhere because in a city of 5 million people, a guy who creeped a woman out on a bus is front page news. The fact that there are any homeless people in any city who aren’t behind bars pretty much disproves that. As bad as our justice system can be, that just doesn’t happen.
3. The one exception might be if someone within earshot got involved and/or an officer was in the immediate vicinity and the creepy guy was found to be in possession of an illegal firearm. Then your scenario might play out. But if the guy who wouldn’t leave me alone illegally had a gun, then screaming was the best decision I could have made.
4. Don’t you usually hold yourself above these sort of hyperbolic hysterics?

 

[ConfusedLucy]

Two exceptions actually, though don’t ask me why:

No one here suggested women should be responsible for managing men’s feelings. Since it’s quite probable you’re referring to me, my suggestion is that other people’s feelings aren’t free to completely disregard when we feel potentially threatened by them (regardless of respective sexes or whether sexuality is involved or an unrelated threat, e.g. to property, or purely physical violence) or when we simply don’t like them or what they are saying or proposing (just like a man’s not free to just tell another man to sod off versus politely declining a drink, ride or conversation or whatever). This is not in any way about a woman being expected to protect a man’s ego but only about a woman, just because of being a woman, is not being free to become a sort of loose cannon the moment she registers a potential yellow flag somewhere that could potentially develop into a threat or offends her sensibilities. Just like I can’t shout ‘you, stop right there’ if I see a larger man approaching in a tone of voice suggesting he’s a criminal or somehow my social ‘inferior’ just because I’m white collar and he’s blue or some other nonsense reason; chances are he just needs some light for his cigarette, or directions. Chances are my hand is already in my pocket, wrapping around a heavy bunch of keys just in case, but that doesn’t give me the right to already judge that dude (categorize him as a con/mugger) or talk trash to him or about him (e.g. tell him he probably is all that). And obviously any subjective offense that I might feel about the very idea of someone from a less white, educated, wealthy, clean or otherwise ‘good’ background daring to suggest that we might have something in common (and we do, we’re cousins through Adam and Eve, though a lot of times ‘removed’) is obviously something that I should keep to myself, even if I felt that sort of thing — shame on me if I did. Likewise shame on me for cracking jokes that he didn’t have the quick wit understand or talking to him like I can actually order him around. And that latter is a frequent way of women talking to or about men, though sometimes that’s actually caused by a traditional upbringing rather than third or fourth or whichever wave it is right now.

In fact, it is also your way of talking when you mention ‘managing men’s feelings’. I’m sorry, but nobody has asked to be managed by you, feelings or otherwise. The very suggestion is insulting, and yes, a man has just as much of a right to not be insulted by a woman as a woman by a man. Being female does not give you a right to talk about ‘managing men’, nor even to talk about their feelings dismissively for that matter. Why? Because please consider that ‘do unto others as you would be done unto’ comes straight from the Bible and includes talking, not just physically doing things. And I don’t think it’s an unwarranted speculation to think that you’d be quite worked up yourself if a man started to talk about having to manage you (notably because you can’t manage yourself or somehow on some level allegedly want to be managed by him). And it’s only right that you would be worked up if that happened, but please consider it works both ways. This is kinda all that I’ve been saying throughout that incendiary discussion before I had to bail out because the rampant accusations and diagnoses and other ad hominems (which I’m not even going to reply to, nothing has changed on this front) got way out of hand.

It’s only up to you whether you will twist this into another imaginary attack that isn’t there or actually stop and think and maybe see some reason and common ground in it and take it from there, so give it a think before replying.

To be fair if a man (or woman for that matter) accused me of needing to be managed I like to think I would hear them out and consider what they are saying, maybe even look at whether I could be more responsible and take some of the pressure off them if they had a point.

Back to the bus example, I think you are forgetting that the nervous woman is only human, when trying to deal with the situation she may have her upbringing (being taught to be polite), her conscience and her fear all competing as she tries to figure out how to deal with the situation and she may end up handling it more harshly than intended. Chances are she will spend a long time second guessing the situation afterwards and wondering if it could have been better handled. Most women don’t want to ruin men out of spite.

 

[Xantippe]

1. No one advocated behaving that way. Ever. But you’ve insisted that the 18 year old calling DL sexy needs the benefit of the doubt or that she’s rude for shutting down unwanted conversations with strange men in favor of reading.
2. Aren’t you a lawyer? Think about how stupid your scenario looks from a real world legal perspective. I scream at someone to get away from me. Suddenly, police arrive out of nowhere, arrest a man on no charges, charge him with something terrible in the absence of a victim, witnesses to a crime (a woman shouting is not a crime), the state decides to prosecute a victimless, evidenceless case, lock him up for a “hefty sentence” in the absence of any physical harm, and in the meantime, his face is plastered everywhere because in a city of 5 million people, a guy who creeped a woman out on a bus is front page news. The fact that there are any homeless people in any city who aren’t behind bars pretty much disproves that. As bad as our justice system can be, that just doesn’t happen.
3. The one exception might be if someone within earshot got involved and/or an officer was in the immediate vicinity and the creepy guy was found to be in possession of an illegal firearm. Then your scenario might play out. But if the guy who wouldn’t leave me alone illegally had a gun, then screaming was the best decision I could have made.
4. Don’t you usually hold yourself above these sort of hyperbolic hysterics?

…or drugs, or an outstanding warrant, or is “drunk and disorderly,” or gets into an altercation with the security guard or police?

Sure, there are lots of ways to wind up in jail if any of the above apply.

But a stone cold sober solid citizen who is arrested for just talking briefly to a woman in public–no way.

 

[DarkLight]

…or drugs, or an outstanding warrant, or is “drunk and disorderly,” or gets into an altercation with the security guard or police?

Sure, there are lots of ways to wind up in jail if any of the above apply.

But a stone cold sober solid citizen who is arrested for just talking briefly to a woman in public–no way.

I actually talked to some real-life cops and was told that even if a guy is behaving in a way that would normally be considered harassment, e.g. repeatedly getting in a woman’s face and bothering the same woman multiple days in a row after she’s told him to stop, he’s still not committed any crime and there’s nothing the police can do.

 

[Xantippe]

I actually talked to some real-life cops and was told that even if a guy is behaving in a way that would normally be considered harassment, e.g. repeatedly getting in a woman’s face and bothering the same woman multiple days in a row after she’s told him to stop, he’s still not committed any crime and there’s nothing the police can do.

…unless there’s a restraining order.

I really feel like they should have mentioned that part.

Edited to add: I should mention that I realize that a restraining order isn’t some sort of magical protective pixie dust, but it would give the police something to work with.

 

[DarkLight]

…unless there’s a restraining order.

I really feel like they should have mentioned that part.

Edited to add: I should mention that I realize that a restraining order isn’t some sort of magical protective pixie dust, but it would give the police something to work with.

Right, but in many states a restraining order requires a threat of violence, or more significant behavior like following someone home. Someone who is in public, say at a bus stop, presumably to ride the bus, but continues in pestering a woman while he’s there, may not rise to the level of threat that would legally justify a restraining order - even if he’s persistently harassing her.

 

[Xantippe]

Right, but in many states a restraining order requires a threat of violence, or more significant behavior like following someone home. Someone who is in public, say at a bus stop, presumably to ride the bus, but continues in pestering a woman while he’s there, may not rise to the level of threat that would legally justify a restraining order - even if he’s persistently harassing her.

GAH!

 

[CountrySteve]

I don’t want to read through the whole thread, but if the lady doesn’t want to talk, why keep trying right? Should be as simple as that, unless the person doesn’t give clear social cues of her discomfort.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’m sorry, but that post wasn’t written for you, so making you feel better was not my goal. I certainly wish you the best in that area, as well as any other, but at the end of the day how you feel is your own responsibility. My only suggestion is that you may want to let some steam off at the gym or shooting range, take a walk, have a glass of whisky, whatever works for you. After that we can start talking, in PM or a new thread, if you’re even interested and I rather doubt, when you drop the sarcasm, hostility and contemptuous tone, which does you no credit, but not before.

If anyone would like to continue the discussion with me, whether to agree with something I said or try to convince me to your point of view (or any other reason, really), then please do so by sending me a private message. Anyone is welcome to. Aggressive PMs, threats, name-calling etc. will go straight to the moderators, though.

Hope this off-topic discussion can now die in peace.

Is this a manifestation of your social confusion?

This thread has been illuminating to say the least.

I’m starting to see the nice guy label as a misnomer.

 

[Xantippe]

Is this a manifestation of your social confusion?

This thread has been illuminating to say the least.

I’m starting to see the nice guy label as a misnomer.

Yep!

 

[Melissa]

Two exceptions actually, though don’t ask me why:
No one here suggested women should be responsible for managing men’s feelings. Since it’s quite probable you’re referring to me, my suggestion is that other people’s feelings aren’t free to completely disregard when we feel potentially threatened by them (regardless of respective sexes or whether sexuality is involved or an unrelated threat, e.g. to property, or purely physical violence) or when we simply don’t like them or what they are saying or proposing (just like a man’s not free to just tell another man to sod off versus politely declining a drink, ride or conversation or whatever). This is not in any way about a woman being expected to protect a man’s ego but only about a woman, just because of being a woman, is not being free to become a sort of loose cannon the moment she registers a potential yellow flag somewhere that could potentially develop into a threat or offends her sensibilities.

In fact, it is also your way of talking when you mention ‘managing men’s feelings’. I’m sorry, but nobody has asked to be managed by you, feelings or otherwise. The very suggestion is insulting, and yes, a man has just as much of a right to not be insulted by a woman as a woman by a man. Being female does not give you a right to talk about ‘managing men’, nor even to talk about their feelings dismissively for that matter. Why? Because please consider that ‘do unto others as you would be done unto’ comes straight from the Bible and includes talking, not just physically doing things. And I don’t think it’s an unwarranted speculation to think that you’d be quite worked up yourself if a man started to talk about having to manage you (notably because you can’t manage yourself or somehow on some level allegedly want to be managed by him). And it’s only right that you would be worked up if that happened, but please consider it works both ways.

To be honest, this is striking me as ridiculous. In the world presented by chevalier’s posts, a man can simply decline a drink/ride, but a woman has to submit to being argued with before the man accepts that she has declined, or else he is being asked to “build a shrine” to her autonomy and right to say no.

Let’s take the bus stop example:
Ann is at the bus stop, and reading a book while she is waiting for her bus.
Ben-the-NiceGuy[tm] arrives at the bus stop, and seeing Ann reading her book decides to engage her in conversation: “That is a good book you are reading”
Ann: mm-hmm (without looking up from book)
Ben: Have you read other books by [author]?
Ann: Thanks, I’d really rather just read my book.
Ben: Nice weather for reading, isn’t it?"
Ann: Leave me alone.
Ben: What are you implying?
Ann: (yelling)–LEAVE ME ALONE!

How many times did Ann let Ben know she wasn’t interested in conversation before hollering at him? Four! How many times does she have to do so in chevalier-land before Ben should stop?

Or, let’s take the bus stop example with a couple different people:
Carol is at the bus stop, and reading a book while she is waiting for her bus.
Dan arrives at the bus stop, and seeing Carol reading, decides to engage her in conversation: “Is that a good book you’re reading?”
Carol: (without looking up) mm-hmm
Dan: :thinks to self, ‘that must be a really good book. I should check on amazon and see if I can get a copy, she’s really enjoying it. I probably shouldn’t have tried to interrupt her.’ (pulls out pocket sudoku and pencil and minds his own business while waiting for the bus)

Or another:
Elly is at the bus stop, and reading a book while she is waiting for her bus. She sees Frank approaching the bus stop out of the corner of her eye, and pauses and looks up at him.
Frank arrives at the bus stop, and says: “Is that a good book you’re reading?”
Elly: Yes, it’s the third in the series, and I’ve really been enjoying it.
Frank and Elly then have a conversation until after a couple more exchanges, Elly indicates that she wants to go back to reading, and Frank (being a decent and mature man) finds some other way to occupy his time than trying to keep Elly in the conversation.

The idea that a woman is being held responsible for “managing a man’s feelings” comes from that first scenario with Ann and Ben, in which Ben repeatedly tramples over social norms and Ann’s preference to read a book rather than engage in conversation. This is the impression of how the interaction would go if written by chevalier:

Ann is at the bus stop, reading a book. Ben arrives, and Ann continues to turn pages without acknowledging Ben’s existence.
Ben: That must be a really good book
Ann: mm-hmm
Ben: :thinks to self, ‘that’s really rude of her. I’ll give her another chance’ and says “Have you read many other books by that author?”
Ann: “Thanks, I’d really rather just read my book.”
Ben: :thinks to self, ‘wow, she really is rude! I’ll give her one more chance’: and says “Nice weather for reading, isn’t it?”
Ann: Leave me alone, you creep!
Ben: What are you implying?
Ann: LEAVE ME ALONE! Police! Come arrest this man!
olice arrive and haul Ben off to prison and/or hard labor while Ben stands bewildered with a ‘what did I do wrong?’ expression:

chevalier:

It’s only up to you whether you will twist this into another imaginary attack that isn’t there or actually stop and think and maybe see some reason and common ground in it and take it from there, so give it a think before replying.

The attacks haven’t been imaginary when asking that a “no” be accepted without requiring submission to multiple attempts to cajole is “building a shrine and lighting candles to” the woman’s autonomy and right to decline to participate in interaction with any particular individual.

 

[Xantippe]

On a somewhat different tack, I’d like to mention that being able to say “no” is an essential skill for maintaining chastity.

A woman who can’t say “no” to a conversation or a ride or whatever is a woman who is going to have an awful time staying out of sexual sin.

There’s a song about that in the musical Oklahoma.

themusicallyrics.com/o/224-oklahoma-the-musical-lyrics/1275-i-cant-say-no.html