How to Stop Being a Nice Guy. Thoughts?

[Xantippe]

Continuing the thought, a lot of naive or inexperienced young religious women get trapped by the idea that they need to “persuade” their boyfriends of the rightness of their views on physical intimacy and wind up in long, repeated arguments that they (all too often) wind up losing. (This situation comes up with some regularity on CAF.)

If there is any young woman (or parent of young women) still on the thread, I would like to point to them that that is a really bad idea. In that particular situation, the right thing to do is just to lay down a “no” but not argue–and just move on from the relationship if the boyfriend continues to press or argue. (This applies just as much to naive or inexperienced young religious men, of course–neither sex should attempt apologetics with their feet off the floor.)

This is a lot easier said than done, and it is a good idea to get some practice in not arguing with issues that are less life-and-death.

There are a lot of issues where it’s important to avoid pointless arguments, and where the argument itself is a temptation to linger on dangerous territory.

 

[Melissa]

Now I am sure that the whole ‘safe person’ category is damaged goods.

On those facts one can’t be sure Steve is a safe person and while you don’t need (never did, anyway) any sort of justification whatsoever to just turn down his offer, certainty that he is unsafe would be an unwarranted as long as he didn’t actually start following you over your objections after you departed. Had he simply tried reasoning with you, perhaps asking once or twice more (which no doubt must have felt tedious on the receiving end), then it would be a jumped conclusion and ultimately injustice to the guy, completely separately from the problem of turning down his offer (which is not a problem to begin with because nobody disputes the fact that you have no obligation to accept and shouldn’t be guilt-tripped or pity-tripped into accepting, which would be toxic behaviour for Steve in most situations). … if Steve actually was concerned for your safety and not his chances of finding a girlfriend, then he would have failed at that goal for having dropping the matter after the first round of declining, especially something to the tune of ‘wouldn’t like to be a burden’, which is admittedly a bit of a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ sort of situation.

I’m pulling up the Steve scenario again, because this was actually what did prompt me to want to write in this thread in the first place.

The scenario with Steve is actually ignoring the fact that before she ever encounters him, the woman has almost certainly made her own calculations regarding how safe she feels with where she lives and where she goes, and how she will be getting home from this place.

Again, too, part of the scenario is that Steve is not a friend (except, perhaps in the debased sense of the term that Facebook uses), he is, at best, an acquaintance. This acquaintance is enough basis to determine ‘yes, I would like to know him better’ or ‘no, I’d really rather not’–neither of which implies anything positive or negative about his character nor suggests, in the ‘rather not’ that there is any sort of implication of creepiness/incipient criminality. Even in the ‘I would like to know him better’ category, there is nothing that implies that part of getting to know Steve better includes letting him accompany me home. Steve offers once–that’s fine, but I’d rather not accept this offer because it really is presuming more relationship than exists (that he has somehow become responsible for my safety after we became acquainted)–so I reply, “no, thanks, I’ve got that handled”. This is not saying to anyone “Steve is a creep” nor accusing him of any ill-intent (even if it is true that my gut instinct is that Steve is creepy and I don’t want to be anywhere with him that isn’t very public). When Steve refuses to accept that first no, that’s when he moves solidly into the “that guy is a creep” category.

chevalier:

You could very well run into a Steve that insisted in this way (a minute or two of arguing about it) out of concern for your safety or some notion of gallantry, but afterward didn’t seek your trust because of how the situation made him feel. A very likely scenario with a more traditional sort of guy, actually. A more traditional sort of guy, as opposed to more of a bully sort of guy, would still probably understand the sentiment due not to being blind to the statistics etc. but wouldn’t appreciate being treated like a criminal himself especially in a place and company where his reputation were somewhat known.

That’s actually what I do in those sort of situations anywy. Boringly reiterate the hazard and the importance of avoiding it, suggest a cab rather than actual company much of the time, pay for it if the money seems to be a problem like the bastard that I am, make sure the situation is safe. And since this is safety management and not comfort management, my comfort is the last thing that matters and if I get insulted in the process then I don’t really mind at all, but it obviously isn’t going to make seek the company of the person who did it, now is it. And I certainly have a good laugh at the sorts of things people may have thought. Oh well, enough with this silliness.

It’s more than just tedious to be argued with about a decision that was made. It’s, at the very best, patronizing (suggesting that I am incapable of figuring out how to manage the task of getting home without “Steve” to the rescue), Not to mention that the more he argues with me, the stronger the “no” will get because with every argument, the more solidly into “creep” category Steve gets. The worst case is, of course, that Steve truly is a creep, not just seems like a creep.

To be honest, if it were me, “Steve” would be arguing with empty air, because I would not bother responding, I would simply leave (unless he moved to physically block my exit or laid hands on me–either action being sufficient cause for yelling at Steve to leave me alone/let me go). I (and any other woman) do not have to put up with being argued with after having given a clear answer. Steve’s behavior in persisting after the first no is outside social norms–how far is not determined yet, but it is determined to be outside.

chevalier:

For the record, in those facts he has not demonstrated that he is likely not to accept a no but rather that the likelihood may be larger than with the average person perhaps. And the cab issue didn’t pop up, so chances are he got no chance to give it a thought (a lot of decent people have rather uninspiring intelligence).

Actually, he has demonstrated that he is likely to not accept a no. Because he already has not accepted a no. QED

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

There is a touch of hearbreak in doing all that prep work for those playdates, and then there being no playdate after all–WAAAH, does nobody love me? I’m SO LONELY! You’d be surprised how similar the process of guys trying to meet women is to women trying to make friends with other women–obvious differences, of course, but we’re all dealing with trying to have dyadic relationships of some kind with women. How many times have I eyed another woman alone at the park or children’s museum with her kids and wondered whether I could make friends with her? So, joking aside (and I am joking, this is an analogy not an exact equivalence), I do feel your pain. Relationships are hard. (And have you ever been around a breakup between two female friends?–it’s a LOT like a romantic breakup in terms of heartbreak and emotional intensity.)

And a note for guys–while I realize that there are women who can make friends with other women from the park or children’s museum, I’ve never managed to pull that off. It’s always been a lot easier for me personally when there’s been some sort of organizational or pre-existing social tie–church, preschool, school, her husband works with my husband, etc. So it’s not a big surprise to me that men approaching women who are total strangers is usually kind of a bust in terms of producing lasting relationships.

On the bright side, I can say with a lot of confidence that Not All Women Are Like That. Flakiness is not universal, just common, and there are a lot of good women out there–reliable, kind, thoughtful, serious about their religion, etc.

Never saw it like that before. Okay, if the heartbreak felt in that situation is that hurtful then who am I to say that it is not as bad?

 

[Rau]

I’ve no stake in the conversation between others and chev. I’m not even that clear what principles he is arguing, but if I may, I will comment on this snippet from one or your earlier posts:

…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 don’t think you can say that that is a given, and to invoke the imagery of “rape” where the only information available is that someone initiates communication (unqualified as to content or manner or situation), with a person they don’t know, doesn’t seem reasonable. This, I think, is where one’s perspective on “stranger interactions” alters one’s reading of the situation. The initiator may simply be gregarious. They enjoy a friendly exchange (it may be no more than a couple of sentences), they’d like to think the other party is of similar personality, but they’ve no right to assume they are, and we’ve no right to assume such a person “expects” anything (aside from politeness I suppose) simply because he initiated communication. Hopefully both parties are courteous, unless something untoward happens. Should the initiator begin to *insist *on participation (or persist) in a “chat” - when the other indicates a contrary wish, that’s untoward and a failure to recognise boundaries. I can see why that might be loosely viewed as “rape-y”

My perspective on stranger interactions (subject to manner, content and situation) may differ from yours. I live in a modern western society, not USA, where it’s OK to say a few words to your neighbour on the bus. There’s no presumption of creepiness. Content and manner define creepiness, not the fact of talking. Asking for phone numbers, or for a date, of some stranger with whom there is not yet even a mutually satisfactory conversation (a “substantive connection” - which I can’t imagine happening on the first meeting on the bus!) would indeed be creepy IMHO. Totally wrong content in the circumstances.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Molehill. Mountain. Drama. really got away from Robert Glover, didn’t we?

Just had to get that out of the way.

Have to remember a lot of this is basic biology and evolution. Socially humans have hardly changed at all since early prehistoric times, we just live better, that’s it. Back in the day, people spent their lives in tribal environments in which encounters with strangers had to be sussed out very quickly based on first impressions made in seconds, no time to talk it out as our favorite poster seems to think must happen. Now we live in much safer circumstances, but the old biology never went away: we still at a gut level evaluate strangers very quickly and that has to be taken into account. But some people are what we might call “spergy” as in while they may or may not have Asperger’s but they exhibit some of the symptoms of the inability to recognize and adhere to social cues.

In general, the ability to say no before one gets into a compromising situation is what works best to keep people from yielding to temptation whether it’s that hot date one is with (go home earlier!) or that deliciously wicked double fudge chocolate raspberry cake (leave it in the bakery!) or that wad of cash someone left behind (turn it in or do something for others with it!) or that TV show that keeps one pinned to the couch with a bag of Cheetos (don’t turn on the TV!), etc. In other words, the time to say no isn’t in the bedroom or the kitchen, it was outside the home or in the store, respectively.

Flakiness is definitely a thing among women. Seems to be more common now than when I was in school.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

I think you are missing the point.

Perhaps.

My original point was simply that i think suffering a broken heart is worst to me than suffering a broken back (not literallty of course but you know what I mean). That is all. Nothing about what is physically harder than anything else

 

[Rau]

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.

I think your example conversations are quite good at illustrating both good and bad behaviour. When boundaries are properly recognised and observed, everybody goes away happy.

 

[Xantippe]

Actually, he has demonstrated that he is likely to not accept a no. Because he already has not accepted a no. QED

Right.

 

[Xantippe]

I’ve no stake in the conversation between others and chev. I’m not even that clear what principles he is arguing, but if I may, I will comment on this snippet from one or your earlier posts:

I don’t think you can say that that is a given, and to invoke the imagery of “rape” where the only information available** is that someone initiates communication (unqualified as to content or manner or situation), with a person they don’t know, doesn’t seem reasonable.** This, I think, is where one’s perspective on “stranger interactions” alters one’s reading of the situation. The initiator may simply be gregarious. They enjoy a friendly exchange (it may be no more than a couple of sentences), they’d like to think the other party is of similar personality, but they’ve no right to assume they are, and we’ve no right to assume such a person “expects” anything (aside from politeness I suppose) simply because he initiated communication. Hopefully both parties are courteous, unless something untoward happens. Should the initiator begin to *insist *on participation (or persist) in a “chat” - when the other indicates a contrary wish, that’s untoward and a failure to recognise boundaries. I can see why that might be loosely viewed as “rape-y”

My perspective on stranger interactions (subject to manner, content and situation) may differ from yours. I live in a modern western society, not USA, where it’s OK to say a few words to your neighbour on the bus. There’s no presumption of creepiness. Content and manner define creepiness, not the fact of talking. Asking for phone numbers, or for a date, of some stranger with whom there is not yet even a mutually satisfactory conversation (a “substantive connection” - which I can’t imagine happening on the first meeting on the bus!) would indeed be creepy IMHO. Totally wrong content in the circumstances.

It’s not just that they feel OK with initiating a conversation–that’s fine. But they feel entitled to an actual conversation with a total stranger–that’s essentially what Chevalier was arguing for, that in order to be polite, a woman has to stop what she’s doing, engage a strange man in conversation, and she only gets to get out of the conversation once she’s danced a polite conversational minuet for him to his satisfaction. I forget Chevalier’s exact phrasing, but he was arguing that saying that you are busy with your book or listening to your music is rude.



As a mom of a teen girl, I’m all NOPE.

 

[Xantippe]

Molehill. Mountain. Drama. really got away from Robert Glover, didn’t we?

Just had to get that out of the way.

Have to remember a lot of this is basic biology and evolution. Socially humans have hardly changed at all since early prehistoric times, we just live better, that’s it. Back in the day, people spent their lives in tribal environments in which encounters with strangers had to be sussed out very quickly based on first impressions made in seconds, no time to talk it out as our favorite poster seems to think must happen. Now we live in much safer circumstances, but the old biology never went away: we still at a gut level evaluate strangers very quickly and that has to be taken into account. But some people are what we might call “spergy” as in while they may or may not have Asperger’s but they exhibit some of the symptoms of the inability to recognize and adhere to social cues.

In general, the ability to say no before one gets into a compromising situation is what works best to keep people from yielding to temptation whether it’s that hot date one is with (go home earlier!) or that deliciously wicked double fudge chocolate raspberry cake (leave it in the bakery!) or that wad of cash someone left behind (turn it in or do something for others with it!) or that TV show that keeps one pinned to the couch with a bag of Cheetos (don’t turn on the TV!), etc.** In other words, the time to say no isn’t in the bedroom or the kitchen, it was outside the home or in the store, respectively.**

Flakiness is definitely a thing among women. Seems to be more common now than when I was in school.

Very true about the time to say no.

I think that part of the issue with flakiness is that it’s more of a thing among new acquaintances (which is who you run into on first dates). With more established relationships or friendships, one has had the chance to sift those people out.

One of the flakier people I know is a male academic (not, I have to add, my husband). This guy is brilliant and very fun, but he has the interesting time saving method of not noting down obligations, but just waiting for people to remind him of what he is supposed to do.

All of the German in me (and there’s a fair bit) is horrified by that approach.

 

[DarkLight]

It’s not just that they feel OK with initiating a conversation–that’s fine. But they feel entitled to an actual conversation with a total stranger–that’s essentially what Chevalier was arguing for, that in order to be polite, a woman has to stop what she’s doing, engage a strange man in conversation, and she only gets to get out of the conversation once she’s danced a polite conversational minuet for him to his satisfaction. I forget Chevalier’s exact phrasing, but he was arguing that saying that you are busy with your book or listening to your music is rude.



As a mom of a teen girl, I’m all NOPE.

This. A guy certainly can try. And a woman has the right to not engage him in conversation just because he tried. And she doesn’t have to apologize or bend over backwards - simply saying “I’d like to read please” or somesuch (which chevalier objected to) is sufficient.

 

[Rau]

It’s not just that they feel OK with initiating a conversation–that’s fine. But they feel entitled to an actual conversation with a total stranger–that’s essentially what Chevalier was arguing for, that in order to be polite, a woman has to stop what she’s doing, engage a strange man in conversation, and she only gets to get out of the conversation once she’s danced a polite conversational minuet for him to his satisfaction. I forget Chevalier’s exact phrasing, but he was arguing that saying that you are busy with your book or listening to your music is rude.



As a mom of a teen girl, I’m all NOPE.

Then we agree it is ok to initiate communication, but presumptuous to feel entitled to a conversation (beyond a courteous response, which may well be to decline to engage). All good.

What I take issue with is the idea that initiating communication is already a step too far.

Perhaps chev, very briefly, could express where he sits, viz a viz these last couple of posts.

 

[Bill_Martin]

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 this is reading waaaay too much into a woman’s response. A simple “No” or “I’m reading now” probably means exactly that.

Given that public transportation is widely considered a place to leave others alone, anyone violating this unwritten norm is already going to be viewed with a bit more suspicion than if the encounter had been somewhere else, and the responses more curt.

That does not simultaneously make them some sort of 87th wave feminist meta-point about the social and moral superiority of women and a verbal castration of the inferior male interloper who had the nerve to disrupt her princessdom with his plans for rape and evil. It just means no.

 

[Xantippe]

Just for completeness, I’m going to mention that a lot of my thoughts on Steve (the new acquaintance that wants to walk the woman home against her objections) are based on what I’ve seen online of pickup artist technique. Those guys are (for obvious reasons) very big on walking women home. There is (I kid you not) a thread or two on a big pickup artist’s forum devoted entirely to what genius it is to tell your new female acquaintance that you need to use her bathroom (I’m not going to link to that thread–but it’s there). Once the guy is in the woman’s home, by their own description, all sorts of bad stuff starts happening–refusing to leave, bullying into sex, outright rape, etc.

So, there is every reason for a single woman to keep a large bubble of distance between her new male acquaintance and her home. Refusing walks home from new male acquaintances is Safety 101.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Just for completeness, I’m going to mention that a lot of my thoughts on Steve (the new acquaintance that wants to walk the woman home against her objections) are based on what I’ve seen online of pickup artist technique. Those guys are (for obvious reasons) very big on walking women home. There is (I kid you not) a thread or two on a big pickup artist’s forum devoted entirely to what genius it is to tell your new female acquaintance that you need to use her bathroom (I’m not going to link to that thread–but it’s there). Once the guy is in the woman’s home, by their own description, all sorts of bad stuff starts happening–refusing to leave, bullying into sex, outright rape, etc.

So, there is every reason for a single woman to keep a large bubble of distance between her new male acquaintance and her home. Refusing walks home from new male acquaintances is Safety 101.

Same with cars. Back in college (I did my undergrad in a particularly dangerous city), a group of friends and I met up at an after hours bar that was a little seedy to start with. A guy we all knew-ish and no one trusted showed up without being invited, but no one wanted to tell him he wasn’t welcome.

At the end of the night as we were leaving, he said he was going to walk me to my car. The whole group froze and I said without really thinking “Actually, lets all walk to my car”. The guys in the group quickly agreed that would be best, and the girls all made eye contact with me one by one and smiled. Was the guy disappointed he didn’t get to be alone with me? Yup. Did I care? Not one bit.

 

[Xantippe]

Same with cars. Back in college (I did my undergrad in a particularly dangerous city), a group of friends and I met up at an after hours bar that was a little seedy to start with. A guy we all knew-ish and no one trusted showed up without being invited, but no one wanted to tell him he wasn’t welcome.

At the end of the night as we were leaving, he said he was going to walk me to my car. The whole group froze and I said without really thinking “Actually, lets all walk to my car”. The guys in the group quickly agreed that would be best, and the girls all made eye contact with me one by one and smiled. Was the guy disappointed he didn’t get to be alone with me? Yup. Did I care? Not one bit.

Yep! You were lucky have such on-the-ball friends.

This is a little bit of a digression, but there are occasionally guys who hang around colleges who aren’t actually students, but pretend to be students. When I was in school, there was a guy doing that who got caught passing himself off as Magic Johnson’s nephew (it was in Los Angeles at a school where there were a lot of celebrity offspring, so it wasn’t crazy). I don’t know that that guy was dangerous in any way, but some years later, one of my young relatives wound up getting involved with a different guy who was hanging around her college who turned out to be a suspect in a murder case. He was also brutally abusive to our young relative–burning her and causing brain injuries–but we didn’t find that out until years later. (He’s now doing 40 years in prison for that earlier murder–thanks be to God.)

So, I would encourage young adults to be cautious about the kind of guy you describe, who just kind of gloms on to your social group, but that nobody actually knows well.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Don’t want to ruin men? How can you “ruin” someone by ignoring or plainly deflecting an unwanted social overture from a complete stranger?

No matter who is trying to strike up a conversation with what stranger, the person being addressed out of the blue has no social obligation to respond at all. When you make that kind of a social overture without being in some urgent need of humanitarian aid, you have to be ready to be plainly ignored. That is the chance you take.

The same thing goes if a total stranger jumps into a conversation between two people who know each other. The two people are free to just politely ignore the person trying to insert himself into their conversation, just as they would do if he were actually talking past them to a third party whom they did not know. If he persists, they are totally within the boundaries of polite behavior to simply say, “Do you MIND?” and then pointedly return to ignoring him. In that case, it is he, not them, who has committed the social faux pas. If he or she doesn’t catch on to that and drop the unwanted overtures, the person making the overtures has gone from adventuresome to just socially inept.

 

[EasterJoy]

What I take issue with is the idea that initiating communication is already a step too far.

It is going out on a limb. You could get lucky and find a conversational partner willing to talk to you even though they do not know you or have any idea what your intentions are. You may not get lucky, in which case your social overture is going to be left hanging like an ignored bid for a handshake with a total stranger. You have to be ready to say, “ah, well, it was a try” and withdraw quietly without making a big deal of it, that’s all. The person refusing you had that right. If you readily took a chance on them and they don’t respond as you had hoped, it is a little embarrassing, but that was the gamble you made. If you take it quietly, take the subtle “no” for an answer, and let the whole thing drop, it is a small thing. Such a mild embarrassment is rarely fatal, but if it would mortify you, then you’re better off restricting your social overtures to people who know you and are bound by social convention to give you a more substantial response when they communicate their regret that they aren’t making themselves available for a chat.

What you may not do without being completely rude is fail to take the choice not to respond as a “no.” If you make a bid to talk to a total stranger and they ignore you, it is a very impolite imposition to keep pushing. You might get a gentle verbal refusal to engage, but you should not be surprised when the target of your attentions registers real annoyance and tells you in no uncertain terms that you need to stop. You’ve violated a boundary, and the owner of the boundary has every right to be peeved at you that such an obvious boundary had to be defended from you at all.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

Don’t want to ruin men? What is that supposed to mean? How can you “ruin” someone by ignoring or plainly deflecting an unwanted social overture from a complete stranger?

No matter who is trying to strike up a conversation with what stranger, the person being addressed out of the blue has no social obligation to respond at all. When you make that kind of a social overture without being in some urgent need of humanitarian aid, you have to be ready to be plainly ignored. That is the chance you take.

The same thing goes if a total stranger jumps into a conversation between two people who know each other. The two people are free to just politely ignore the person trying to insert himself into their conversation, just as they would do if he were actually talking to a third party whom they did not know. If he persists, they are totally within the boundaries of polite behavior to simply say, “Do you MIND?” In that case, it is he, not them, who has committed the social faux pas. If he or she doesn’t catch on to that and drop the unwanted overtures, the person making the overtures has gone from adventuresome to just socially inept.

Well Chevalier seemed concerned that the lady on the bus yelling"get away from me!" would be doing so because she wanted the police to be called and the mans life ruined. I argue that the woman would most likely be acting out of panic rather than malice and just want the guy to leave her alone.

I agree about talking to strangers which is why I don’t do it, in my experience few people appreciate random people approaching them and trying to start conversations especially when it means interrupting.

 

[Rau]

It is going out on a limb. You could get lucky and find a conversational partner willing to talk to you even though they do not know you or have any idea what your intentions are. You may not get lucky, in which case your social overture is going to be left hanging like an ignored bid for a handshake with a total stranger. You have to be ready to say, “ah, well, it was a try” and withdraw quietly without making a big deal of it, that’s all. The person refusing you had that right. If you readily took a chance on them and they don’t respond as you had hoped, it is a little embarrassing, but that was the gamble you made. If you take it quietly, take the subtle “no” for an answer, and let the whole thing drop, it is a small thing. Such a mild embarrassment is rarely fatal, but if it would mortify you, then you’re better off restricting your social overtures to people who know you and are bound by social convention to give you a more substantial response when they communicate their regret that they aren’t making themselves available for a chat.

What you may not do without being completely rude is fail to take the choice not to respond as a “no.” If you make a bid to talk to a total stranger and they ignore you, it is a very impolite imposition to keep pushing. You might get a gentle verbal refusal to engage, but you should not be surprised when the target of your attentions registers real annoyance and tells you in no uncertain terms that you need to stop. You’ve violated a boundary, and the owner of the boundary has every right to be peeved at you that such an obvious boundary had to be defended from you at all.

I agree with all that. I’ve not advocated for any of the behaviours you identify as improper.