> This might be hard, as no unwanted advances are taking place. We simply have students excelling at the course, and drawing-in a crowd. I should've been more clear with my "leching" comment. Still, it seems harassing in nature.
It seems increasingly that society demands a world where dating only happens during designated and approved dating times and venues, and outside those strictly delimited places, men are to behave as eunuchs, and all prospects of romance are to be extinguished.
Then wonder why marriage and fertility rates are tanking.
Nobody cares if college students try to date other students from their classes.
It is weird when people take a class specifically because of that reason though.
It is even weirder when the class in question is something that they have a very high skill level in specifically so that they will be able leverage that into some kind of situation that leads to dating.
This is pretty cut and dry to me, I am not sure why so many people in this thread see no problem with this.
It's not surprising imo. If you don't go significantly out of your way to be in spaces where you might bump in to someone you'd date, it's unlikely to happen. "designated dating spaces" like apps and bars have largely been failures so people are returning to tradition of trying to bump in to people semi organically.
I'm a gay guy so the situation is a little different/more level but I put a lot of effort in searching out local events, clubs, hobbies and attending a whole bunch of things I don't actually care that much about, just in an effort to be more visible and meet new people. Because getting to know someone first without jumping directly in to being serious like you get in dating apps is way better. You wouldn't consider it weird to join say a hiking club to make friends as the primary goal over just the hiking.
>You wouldn't consider it weird to join say a hiking club to make friends as the primary goal over just the hiking.
I'm queer. I think the issue in the OP is more like that one episode of Community where someone who's very advanced at pottery takes a pottery course -- nothing wrong with meeting people in a class. Nothing wrong with having people see your kindness as attractive because you do things like organize a study group.
The problem becomes if you only let someone like Jeff Winger learn from you, and turn away the Shirleys. (To keep with the "community" analogy :))
I agree there's nothing wrong with joining something to be social, the issue is hiding your skill level or purposefully competing below it...
> As Scott has kindly allowed this discussion to carry on, let me try to inject some more sisterly honesty into the question of dating and what women do or don’t want.
> Let me start by noting that there are a few billions women in the world so the question as posed is ridiculous . In fact I will just say what the sort of women I know well want and leave you to guess how widely applicable this could be. Everything below is unbelievably obvious to most people but I feel is somehow being hidden from the argument by feminists.
> In broad brush strokes, we would like the attractive men to find us attractive and potentially to hit on us *and the unattractive men not to notice we are women.*
> In fact we want a very small percentage of men to find us unbelievably attractive and to hit on us, but in, you know, a nice way. We would like a slightly larger number of men, but still small, to find us very attractive but to do nothing about it (they can talk to each other about how hot and unattainable we are though) and the rest just to completely leave us alone and preferably have no thoughts about us at all.
> But of course it’s not actually that simple, sometimes we don’t even want the hottest men to hit on us. It depends. *To achieve this attraction of the hottest men, we would, like millions of women, dress in a way that is designed to be maximally attractive. A lot of thought and a lot of money goes into the design of the clothes women wear and it’s not an accident that your eye naturally runs up the leg of the dress or down the cleavage*. But how can you dress in a way that is attractive to the men you want but not attractive to other men? How can you let it be known which subset should hit on you? You can’t of course. We Western women take a not very well calculated risk every day hoping that the odds will work out in our favor.
> *It is of course disgusting when an unattractive man hits on you in any situation. You might say we should hit on men. Apart from the fact that you would then just reverse the problem, we don’t want to. Rejection is humiliating*.
> As you may tell, we would like to have all our cakes and eat them at once. But who wouldn’t? Women are just like men, people. Those who are aware of the other nations of Earth will also notice that some cultures don’t think this degree of freedom for women is a good thing. Despite what our media may suggest, they are not simply insane. Although you may not agree with them, our system is not without its flaws.
> My advice to nerdy men would simply be this. If you see a women you would like to date, ask her gently and respectfully (and only once) for a date somewhere non-threatening. How about lunch? She may reject you out of hand. If so, take it politely but confidently and move on and don’t worry about it. Everyone normal understands that what you have done is perfectly reasonable even though you may feel embarrassed at the time.
I assume you are using that phrasing as a proxy for "they want to date".
To note, chosing a field with higher ratio of women can be good for completely different reasons. After spending years in almost 100% male environments, moving to more balanced and diverse environments was like night and day, the toxicity was mostly gone, discussions and communication would be more interesting etc. I heard the same for women moving away from women only places as well.
So yes, looking at the ratio can be plenty helpful outside of any dating concern.
In this case the student wanted to eventually get married and figured his chances were less if he was spending most of his time in classes of mostly males. So it was more of thinking that if he choose a degree path that resulted in fewer female friends, his odds of meeting the right person to marry were lower.
It is probably not weird in the hormone-addled mind of a teenager but yeah, I find it to be some combination of weird, pervy, sleazy, misogynistic, etc.
There are still all female colleges. I wouldn't consider it weird for a female to decide against an all female college because they want to be able to be around males. It also doesn't seem weird that they might want to avoid classes that are all female. If they have two degree options they are considering and one tends to be mostly female, it seems like that might factor into their degree selection as well without being weird.
Wanting to spend more time with women is misogynistic?
I don't want to whip out the dictionary definition of that word, but in what way does choosing classes to spend more time with women (because your existing classes are full of guys) mean you hate women?
If you are someone who genuinely enjoys the company of women over the company of men, then I agree that it is not misogynistic.
But that isn't really what we are talking about. The average hypothetical man choosing his class or major because of how many women are in it isn't looking to make female friends.
He just wants to surround himself with a higher percentage of people that he is sexually attracted to.
Are you saying that being sexually attracted to women is misogynistic?
I assume you're not saying that, but you're not explaining why this behavior is misogynistic. At best, you might mean that if a man is sexually attracted to women, and he seeks out the company of women, then he must believe that women are sexual objects made strictly for his personal pleasure. Is that what you're trying to say?
> you might mean that if a man is sexually attracted to women, and he seeks out the company of women, then he must believe that women are sexual objects made strictly for his personal pleasure.
I am sort of saying this but not as tautologically as you are stating it.
I am saying that generally, when someone chooses a class or major because of the high percentage of people taking it that said person is sexually attracted to, said person is probably objectifying those people. Said person is probably not interested in friendships with those people or with the personality of those people.
I am not saying that any situation in which a person seeks out another person that they are sexually attracted to is misogynistic or requires objectification.
Sex is not objectification, it’s a natural need. It’s an entirely different point to argue that a friendship between a man and a woman with zero (0) sexual interest, does not exist.
What is this modern style thinking that sex is bad? Sex is a tool for love making.
> I am saying that generally, when someone chooses a class or major because of the high percentage of people taking it that said person is sexually attracted to, said person is probably objectifying those people. Said person is probably not interested in friendships with those people or with the personality of those people.
It comes across that you are demonizing natural and biological sexual attraction between the opposite sexes, and categorizing it as objectification and bad. Then there is oddly separating the possibility of friendship or having an interest in people beyond sexual attraction, as if this is not possible. To include, based on previous statements, these are probably misandric beliefs directed towards men in general.
There is nothing wrong with being physically attracted to the opposite sex, and it's also possible to form friendships or be attracted to other aspects about them. A man can think of a woman as both physically attractive and intelligent. A woman can look at a man as both attractive and possessing a nice personality.
And whatever are the attributes that attract one person to another, that is their right. It is not for a 3rd party to decide what two people find attractive between them. If they want only the purest of friendships or only completely sexual relationships, that is their prerogative. Of which, we usually can't truly know, because both men and women can lie. Only when the line is crossed towards actual violations of written legal policies, violations of human rights, or criminal behavior that it should become the concern of 3rd parties.
> He just wants to surround himself with a higher percentage of people that he is sexually attracted to.
This statement comes across as a bit misandric, but in way in which it appears not to be realized. It's demonizing males who are attracted to the opposite sex, which is natural biology, and as if men shouldn't be allowed to freely associate with other adults of the opposite sex.
On the flip, I don't see women being demonized for wanting to be around a higher percentage of people she is sexually attracted to. Be it males or other females. To include if she chose a class or major with higher prospects for meeting the opposite sex, dating, or for greater marriage prospects.
> The average hypothetical man choosing his class or major because of how many women are in it isn't looking to make female friends.
Again, the casual male demonization and vilification, is both sad and amazing. Few people would come to the conclusion that a woman choosing her class or major based on greater opportunities with the opposite or same sex, would find that to be nefarious by default.
> If you are someone who genuinely enjoys the company of women over the company of men, then I agree that it is not misogynistic.
The later statements contradict this statement. It also appears that for a male to genuinely enjoy the company of women is something weird or odd. Why can't an adult prefer to be around other adults that they want to associate with. There are many women that state they prefer male friends to female friends. That's their preference or personality, nothing nefarious should be read into it, without evidence.
> Really? I know people who specifically chose their entire major based on the ratio of women in that major.
I've chosen my high school (CS-profiled) and major without any such consideration and ended up having ~0 contact with female peers through it all 'till now at 26 years old (and it's unlikely to change...)
I'm an aspie so I guess that might've been for the best*... still, maybe something is slightly off with the society in which this can happen. It seems rather absurd.
* Somewhen during middle or maybe even elementary school I figured I'm unable to understand dating and such, so I should just not attempt it / min-max. I didn't know I'm an aspie until maybe 2 months ago (or rather, I figured I probably am, but as it's permanent I didn't bother thinking about it much and researching information about specifics).
It didn't bother me much, except now I've got an annoyingly persistent FOMO. Eh.
When you approach finding a partner like if you were finding a car or a career, that is definitely weird in my books. Humans have a remarkable ability to be attracted to one and other, it really takes no effort, as if we naturally evolved to do exactly that or something. Now getting attracted to a field of industry, art, or science, that is a lot harder and takes way more effort. Most people I know focus on the latter, and find partners anyway (if they so choose).
> Humans have a remarkable ability to be attracted to one and other, it really takes no effort, as if we naturally evolved to do exactly that or something.
Therefore people wanting to but unable are not human, I guess.
Do you know anybody that wants to be attracted to another person and is unable to?
I know people have some conditions (such as psychopathy) where they don’t form attraction towards other people, I also know there are people that do form attractions but have a hard time expressing it (such as in autism), however I don’t know of any condition or neuro-diversity which wants to form attractions, but is unable to, that would be like a psychopath that still show empathy (which is kind of a contradiction).
But if these people exist, they are still human. I merely said that humans have this capability, not that it was a necessary condition for human individuals.
I see what you mean. I have no opinion on that, as that doesn’t really matter for the subject at hand.
My main point is that if you go about living a normal live, attend social functions, or just see other people on a regular basis, most people will be attracted to some of the people they meet along the way. What I’m getting at, is there is no skill nor effort needed, nothing needs to be carefully evaluated and planned. These attractions just arise naturally for most people. So altering your life course to maximize some chances of attraction, that is weird.
Comes off like a rich person ignoring and walking over poor homeless people begging for food. Then when asked about it, has no understanding for how such circumstances could occur nor empathy. This would be willful obliviousness or tone deafness about the circumstances and plight of others.
> ...go about living a normal live, attend social functions, or just see other people on a regular basis, most people will be attracted to some of the people they meet along the way.
It is more of a feminine perspective and privilege to wait and hope random luck will take care of romantic matters, because mostly, males pursue females. Many women are able to get attention, as a matter of biology. Ignorance or purposely ignoring the mechanics of what is occurring in the background, with regard to why this attention exists and how it shapes the dynamics, can lead to distorted and misplaced views.
Furthermore there are clearly great numbers of people (male and female) that are shy, fear rejection or embarrassment, are socially awkward, or at some disadvantage in social settings. To pretend otherwise, seems to be making a concerted effort to remain oblivious.
> What I’m getting at, is there is no skill nor effort needed, nothing needs to be carefully evaluated and planned.
That is not a perspective many others share and when people are specifically and repeatedly saying this is not the case, it's not helpful to blatantly ignore them. For various people, and more so for men, they do need various levels of knowledge, skill, effort, and/or planning.
Perhaps you are right, however people that are shy and awkward in a natural setting, won’t they also be shy and awkward in a setting which they have manipulated in their favor? I have my doubts about the success rate of these efforts compared to no-effort.
You are right, I might be the one who is tone deaf here, but I still get a strange vibe from people that do this kind of thing, and personally I think I would feel uncomfortable around them.
I guess I kind of expect people to choose to go to a coed college instead of all female or all male based on (at least partially) dating prospects. Does it seem weird for a female interested in both business and nursing to choose business because nursing would be mostly other females and business would be more balanced and more opportunities to develop friendships with the opposite sex?
Coed colleges become all male quite quickly when choosing certain majors - especially in the STEM region.
When I did math & cs - there were almost no women in any classes I took. The few that showed up were typically fob and didn’t speak English much at all or have any interest in integrating.
Is it really weird? I get the gut reaction, and it certainly feels something like "pathetic", but when I think about it more: at the end of the day it's people trying hard to meet other people and find a connection.
Why is it not weird that tons of people use digital buffets to rate potential mates in their area before matching and meeting (often for one night stands)? Is that much different?
What about people looking for "the one" and going to unrelated social gatherings with strangers with that passive desire in the back of their head? That doesn't seem all that weird to me.
What makes this feel weird just seems to boil down to "they are trying too hard" or "they are trying in an unconventional way". The post said it: there are no unwanted advances, there is no harassment, there's just young men trying to find a wife, and pursuing that in a pretty direct and unconventional way.
> It is weird when people take a class specifically because of that reason though.
The ends seem to justify the means, sometimes. I know a married couple who met on a college campus. While students, the man (boy at the time, really) was a manager and chose his and her hours at the campus store so they would overlap. They tell this story proudly. The distinction between weird and romance seems to be whether it succeeds.
Good point. Just saying that considering who you might get to be friends with as part of choosing a section, class, degree, or college isn't anything new.
Perhaps not, but after the novelty wears out, I think there is a high correlation with weird and annoying (especially within the realms of human behavior). And high annoyance within a class setting can for sure be problematic (or at the very least, questionable).
No, you just to treat women with respect. The issue here is intention. The intention here is not about teaching or learning in the class. But its using that pretence in fact distrupting the intention of the class and people there. How do you like your intention distrupted? How about by unattractive slobs who are objectifying you and trying to be "helpful" and trying tricks they found on internet If someone is trying to come to terms with complex mathematics it just not appropriate to distract or give them the feeling of having to deal with a situation of someone coming onto them.
How do people not get this? It's about basic respect. Isn't it totally distracting to you if someone you're not attracted in is looking at you and commenting on you and trying to "help" you?
Maybe you'd like unattractive specimens distrupting your coding process by hanging around and offering to be "helpful"?
You've assumed a great deal more about their behavior than was written. The professor even states "no unwanted advances are taking place", contradicting your characterization. Indeed, your extra assumptions would qualify as 'disruption', and I imagine the professor would be well within her rights to expel such students.
But merely offering, not pushing, assistance, or even less "showboating", letting students in search of help come to them if they want to, isn't disruption or even untoward.
> No, you just to treat women with respect.
We've really come to a point where even the purest romantic intentions (the post talks of wife material, not one night stands) are "disrespectful", have we?
>Some of the young students in my class take up these offers, and this further demoralizes other female students seeing this happen (i.e. only attractive women being offered tutoring sessions). This is further compounded by the condescension involved (i.e. one self-admitted user of the app told me "this material that others struggle with is so easy for me, and I'm doing it for laughs and phone numbers.").
This suggests otherwise. I personally would be very upset if someone helped me purely because they thought I was attractive.
Don't want to make you mad, but odds are someone has done something positive for you at some point solely for one trait about you that they coveted, be it money, your network, your sense of humor, the way you dressed that day, or yes, possibly even the physical shape of your face and/or body.
Emotions aside, why are we not allowed to discourage bad faith behaviour here? It doesn't have to be a legal rule, a social rule seems to exist already. We do the same for many other actions.
Either way I think you're allowed to discourage whatever you want (assuming you do it in a civil way). Not everyone's going to agree though.
Some people are going to think/do things that you/I don't like. And sometimes there doesn't have to be some kind of resolution that comes out of it, some kind of trial and adjudication. Life can just go on regardless.
> I personally would be very upset if someone helped me purely because they thought I was attractive.
What if they helped you because you were funny, or kind, or intelligent, or any number of traits that are primarily related back to your genetics or upbringing?
This is how humans interact. It's rarely a concious consideration of the reason we help others, but it's almost always based on our perception of them.
> You've assumed a great deal more about their behavior than was written. The professor even states "no unwanted advances are taking place", contradicting your characterization
where did I say anything about unwanted advances?
> We've really come to a point where even the purest romantic intentions (the post talks of wife material, not one night stands) are "disrespectful", have we?
that's not what was said. read again. The romantic intention is fine and human, what's at point here is when its totally lacking empathy or any sense of the other person.
You want to know what's romantic?
Respect. Caring about another. Understanding. Doing selfless actions to support another (including by consciously doing nothing because it may be disruptive).
Or do you want to be just like all the other bros who think there's a "trick" and you kinda like have to 'do A, B + C' then you "get" someone? That's a creep who see's women as some sort of prize.
EDIT: I don't know what you've assumed about this post but I'm a guy. If you are actually interested in someone for who they are, try to do good stuff and try not to do bad stuff and respectful you won't have much trouble. Just trying to be a decent human is a universal turn on.
While this is true, you have a lot more control over this than you may realize. Especially if you're a male seeking a female. Most men think they same physical characteristics they're interested in will be appealing to the opposite sex. There are many physical traits that women prefer but they're less shallow than us men.
Confidence and the ability to talk are huge. You're social status among your peer group. How well you dress. Do you look after yourself physically. All of these things can be developed.
Oh I'm plenty aware. I wish someone had explained it to me when I was 16 though.
"There's truly nothing you can do today to change her mind. All the things that would have made her say 'yes' are things you had to start working on 2 years ago. Today you can start working on who you will be in 2 years and persuading the girl you meet then to say 'yes'."
I disagree that guys will only see results from self-improvement in two years; there are behavioral changes that should be mastered immediately. Learning to treat women with proper respect and still come across as attractive to them can be highly beneficial, and is not exactly something that society strives to teach. The earlier you master this, the better.
>Learning to treat women with proper respect and still come across as attractive to them
The unfortunate thing is that not only is this totally opaque, but society actually gives instruction that doesn't work, i.e. bad advice. That's how we get 'nice guys' and pickup artists. Young men have an overwhelming need for intimacy that they're driven to satisfy and there. are. no. guides. on how to obtain it.
I do pretty okay in that department now, but only from 20 miserable years of trial-and-error. Looking back, I had no opportunity to learn the things I know despite desperately looking for them. Felt like I was playing a game where everyone but me and my friends knew the rules. An older brother or maybe a coach might have been a help, but that's all I can think of.
I might agree that the situation 20 years ago was this bad; but things have changed quite a bit. We now know a whole lot more as to how women generally relate to this sex and relationships thing - because they've been telling us first-hand! We have not exactly come to a general realization throughout society that there is such a thing as behaving and relating to others in a more attractive way, but we're not far from it either.
And we also know a lot more about what doesn't work. As it turns out, nice guys simply have no need to gaslight or bamboozle others into doing things they don't actually want, quite unlike the males in OP's story; they have way better things to care about. And the best part is that women can tell; these are not things you can fool anyone about for very long.
There are different types of nice guys. One group is the one that has been told to "be nice, and respectful" and tries to do that but goes over the top to the point of simping and being creepy in a hard to describe way.
They aren't trying to be creepy, they are just misguided and lost.
> There are many physical traits that women prefer but they're less shallow than us men.
> Confidence and the ability to talk are huge. You're social status among your peer group. How well you dress. Do you look after yourself physically. All of these things can be developed.
So, "fit smooth-talking alpha guy"? I'm not sure I agree with it, but your description seems _very_ shallow TBH.
> What traits, that are found attractive, would you describe as less shallow?
You got it backwards - my point was that your description of "many physical traits that women prefer but they're less shallow than us men" is as shallow as "hot lustful babe with big tits" or some other stereotypical horny teenager's dream partner that you probably meant by "shallow".
Also, you know that "gender X is less shallow than Y" is sexist statement, right?
I say less shallow as they are personality traits not purely physical. I'm interested in knowing what you would consider less shallow. Unless your point is that attraction is shallow. That I could see.
>Also, you know that "gender X is less shallow than Y" is sexist statement, right?
I strongly disagree. It's like saying women on average prefer people and men on average prefer things. It's not a judgment just an observation.
> Majority of things you mentioned are not personality traits.
Here are the things I listed:
Confidence and the ability to talk are huge
You're social status among your peer group.
How well you dress.
Do you look after yourself physically.
Lets break them down.
"Confidence and the ability to talk" is absolutely a personality trait.
"You're social status among your peer group" this happens as a result of your personality. If you are a jerk you will not be well liked and will not have very good standing amongst your peers.
"How well you dress" this is an external reflection of who you are. Do you put effort into picking clothing that fits and looks good. This has a massive impact of how other people perceive you. It's the first insight someone gets into your personality. Does this person care enough to put effort into their external appearance. Do they value the perception others have of them.
"Do you look after yourself physically" women and men are looking for life partners. Often people to have a family with. If you want to stick around for long enough to do these things you're going to have to maintain some level of a healthy lifestyle. That desire to maintain health is a personality trait. It doesn't need to be that you spend 2 hours in the gym each day. Just that you haven't let yourself go to the point that you need a mobility scooter and a cpap machine.
> Your anecdotes are not statistics.
Sure if you'd like data please refer to these papers.
>he purest romantic intentions (the post talks of wife material, not one night stands)
Sure, using academic data to statically enter the easiest class with most chicks exudes pure romanticism. I'm sure the upperclassmen playing professor in a lab or doing the work of women they find attractive is totally helping the students learning.
No unwanted advances are taking place is code for "no forced touch or stalking is happening".
Taking a class, participating in labs and offering tutoring purely to find a partner is an extremely high effort attempt from a man. Men try less respectful and far more thinly veiled attempts on women all the time.
> Isn't it totally distracting to you if someone you're not attracted in is looking at you and commenting on you and trying to "help" you?
Why does the amount of effort make things better? By the same measure we would say spying on someone with binoculars is more acceptable than stalking their facebook page.
Effort is generally a pretty good proxy for respect. If this isn't a respectful attempt, can you explain what is a respectful attempt?
You go to a class, offer to help a girl and then at some point later (End of the class, etc) you ask for her number. If she says no at any point you leave her alone. What's disrespectful about that if you're genuinely helping her?
Of course if you're leering and won't leave a girl alone that's disrespectful, but taking a class and offering help to attractive girls isn't inherently disrespectful.
>Effort is generally a pretty good proxy for respect
My example above says otherwise.
>can you explain what is a respectful attempt?
One done in good faith. Which is a slippery and vague concept. The ambiguity would explain the state of this comment section.
>taking a class and offering help to attractive girls isn't inherently disrespectful
I, and others, would consider the crucial point here to be "taking the class" because there will be attactive girls there, to be the disrespectful part. It also matters that this is being done on a mass scale, so that many suitors are disrupting the studies of many students at the same time.
> I, and others, would consider the crucial point here to be "taking the class" because there will be attactive girls there, to be the disrespectful part.
Wait until you find out why men go to nightclubs...
> If men have to pursue women in "good faith" and not purposefully try to position themselves then I have news for you, 99% of men are 'disrespectful'.
"You don't get me Amanda, I'm stalking you because I just have so much respect for you. I'm one of the nice ones!"
"Well detective, I felt like we got off on the wrong foot because I kept a journal of her movements and social circle in a purely respectful manner, but she thought it was creepy. So then I thought, how much more respect can you show a woman than by carefully planning her murder and meticulously cleaning the scene and disposing of her body?"
It’s disrespectful because it ignores the fact that the women are not there to date, but to learn. The men are getting in their way by showing off and offering disingenuous tutoring.
I feel like (as an old person) trying to tell youngsters how to behave at college, seems, well likely to fall in deaf ears.
But I'm not sure your point holds water. If women want to date, they can. If they don't want to then they don't have to. These other students hold no power, assign no grades, and so on.
Perhaps the root issue is the demoralization of some not being offered dates or extra tutoring? But it's hard to see how that might be corrected.
I confess I don't see the actual harm here - those that want to learn can learn, those that want to date can date. I suppose those that want to date, but aren't getting any offers....?
Still, as an old man, I'm not sure I'm qualified to weigh in - but to me it sounds like kids being kids.
A key point is that these students do have power because they already know the coursework. That is the whole reason that they chose these specific classes.
That's a pretty weak hand really. It's not like they're in competition with the other students. They're also offering to help pass on that knowledge in exchange for attention from women. That's not a power move.
That's kind of a hall monitor position of power. Yeah, you appear to be in power but the first person to get annoyed with you is still going to stuff you in a locker. It shows these guys don't know what they're doing. You don't impress girls by showing off how much of a nerd you are. Been there tried that. It doesn't work.
That's part of the problem. The other side has no viable suggestions for such young men, outside of them being already blessed with good looks, is tall, very charismatic, well built, popular, and/or wealthy. So, be the top 20% they are already clearly not, or just passively sit around doing nothing and hope to get randomly lucky.
The subtext here is that women should be able to exist in the world without "unwanted" sexual attention being given towards them. The question is whether this is reasonable.
Should men not seek dates? Should men not go where single women are to seek dates? Should men limit their efforts at getting dates only to "appropriate venues", where women's interest is explicit? How does the man's attractiveness factor into these constraints?
None of this seems reasonable at first blush. Obviously women don't want men they're not attracted to to engage them with romantic interests. Conversely, women generally do want men they are attracted to demonstrate romantic interests, regardless of venue (to a certain extent). But how can this constraint possibly be enforced in a reasonable way?
To me, the issue isn't that class is a totally inappropriate venue (for context, I'm a woman). I've been asked out in class when I was in college. I've also asked people out in class. It was never an issue. It does not interrupt class.
But that is so different than showing up to class with the intent of getting a date. It's disingenuous and, when you have multiple people doing it, it's disruptive and disrespectful to everyone there who wants to learn, especially women.
I'm not saying people never ask each other out in class. What people were doing usually do is fine by my book. But this is a situation where a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind.
There is also no real way to signal interest in being approached. Personally I wear a rainbow watch band in an attempt to signal this but I'm not aware of any typical way a straight person signals interest without being somewhat outgoing and making the first move which seems to be deeply disturbing to the commenters here.
It takes two to tango. If the service works, then clearly some of the women are there to date. Who are we to tell them they're wrong, if both parties benefit from the arrangement?
Obviously if the men are harassing the women, that's bad and they should be held accountable.
I suspect the problem is not harassment but social incompetence. If the young men are anything like I was their approach will be less than smooth. I can see how that would get tiring over time.
When I was in college, many women were there for their "Mrs. degree." Not most women but enough that it had a familiar jokey label. This was even joked about by those same women who were partner-hunting.
And investing time into an activity to meet someone is the opposite of disrespectful. It shows a willingness to at least commit something. I don't see how this is any worse than taking dance classes to meet people. As long as they're not interrupting dance class.
I feel like that does not line up with whats in the post, though. Women are complaining. The guys aren't even fully enrolled in the class, they are auditing. It's the opposite of genuinely investing time - it's all some charade.
> It’s disrespectful because it ignores the fact that the women are not there to date, but to learn.
Well, if they're dating in that class, then you're obviously wrong; those women who date in that class are there to learn and (obviously) open to dating as well.
Who are you to tell women who they may or may not date?
I don't think most of the women in the class are dating. It's clear that a lot of them are uncomfortable. And frankly, we should privilege the interests of people who go to class to learn over those who do not. Even if just say 10% of people found this disruptive to there education, I do think that would make it a bad thing.
> I don't think most of the women in the class are dating. It's clear that a lot of them are uncomfortable. And frankly, we should privilege the interests of people who go to class to learn over those who do not. Even if just say 10% of people found this disruptive to there education, I do think that would make it a bad thing.
Just to be clear, you're advocating that we should take steps to prevent two consensual adults meeting because if they date it offends some other people???
Really? What sort of regressive primitive viewpoint is this?
Didn't we fight for decades to ensure that consensual adults can do whatever the fuck they want to even if some people find it offensive, disgusting and/or immoral?
The whole point is about people seeking out a class just to get a date. Like, if you were interviewing someone for a job and they said they were interested in your company because they wanted to date your coworkers? Would you hire them?
I wouldn’t, because that’s not the point of work.
That doesn’t mean you should stop people from dating their coworkers at all.
If I’m teaching or participating in a class it’s reasonable to expect that everyone shows up with the same primary purpose: learning. Doesn’t mean you need to ban people from dating. But these men are showing up and ignoring the whole point of the class.
My wife told me when we started dating that she picked math in university to find a STEM boy (who was expected to get a high paying job. No math grad school for me). And yes, I helped her with her homework and with studying only because I was attracted to her and dating her. We're both happy with how that turned out.
Honestly assuming we send our kids to college (it's looking like a house and a trust fund will be cheaper by the time they're 18 if we're trying to be financially optimal), we'll definitely be telling them that finding their spouse is going to be the most important thing they could possibly do while there. Almost all of our two social groups are not married, and we probably wouldn't be either if we hadn't met in university (I almost certainly wouldn't be). It is probably the best opportunity for one of the most important events to set the course of your life. Absolutely people should treat it that way.
> My wife told me when we started dating that she picked math in university to find a STEM boy (who was expected to get a high paying job.
The situation that we are dealing with in many societies, is the attempted demonization of heterosexual males by certain groups, which ends up being destructive and a net loss.
That a woman would purposely choose to pick a class to find "better dating options" is fine or even a woman's privilege. If a heterosexual male does so, then it's distorted into being a type of crime or abuse, that certain elements feel it demands punitive school administrative actions or to be criminalized
> It is probably the best opportunity for one of the most important events to set the course of your life.
Not only have many known this for a long time, that college is often the best time and place to find a husband, but statistics bear this out. Many highly educated women who have got married, found their husband during college. When they don't, many regretted it and had severe struggles later on, or the clock ended up running out on their fertility and dating prospects.
As opposed to what? A great jawline or a minimum height level? If anything it's probably relatively mature at that age to even consider what your long term life trajectory would look like with someone.
I guess because they're complaining to the professor about it? Nice attempt to turn the table though, with social skills that subtle I bet you'd fit right with the bozos in this class.
Any sizable group of people where there is fun occurring, will inevitably have someone complain because they aren’t included. It’s impossible to please everyone.
It also can happen if there are actual problems too!
But without looking at the situation, good luck figuring it out.
Modern feminism is very odd, and is the reason I no longer call myself a feminist. The gist appears to be that men - and anything associated with masuculinity - is not ok, unless you're attractive. In addition, women are independent but also need constant protection, assumedly from said attractive masculine men.
It's not hard to see how incel culture rose up and why people like Andrew Tate have so much support. Turns out chickens come home to roost.
Oh come on. It's disingenuous because the motive is to place the women in situations where the tutor can make advances, not to impart knowledge or help. They may or may not be effective tutors; that has nothing to do with whether it's disingenuous.
Taking an art class to meet different people is one thing. You at least have to grapple with the material. You are on equal footing with other students.
Showboating, or "offering to help" in something you have already learned thoroughly is disruptive to others learning.
The "unattractive slobs" bit seems a bit excessive to me, but I absolutely agree with your main point: the issues are indeed respect and intention. As the professor describes it, it sounds like the perpetrators of this "prank" are turning this class into their own romantic playground without regard for their classmates' wishes. Their "help" comes under false pretenses. They seem to think their dating lives are more important than the education of their classmates. There's a fundamental disrespect and a bit of -- sorry to say it -- misogyny there.
An extreme example, I know, but I can't help but think of the movie Audition.
That wasn't my reading. It seemed like the instructor was not thrilled that her course was being audited by showboaters, who were interested in meeting/impressing women as opposed to learning.
I got the sense it was an academic class, not a social class. Also, most students who take classes with no interest in learning would either skip class or keep their mouths shut. The problem here is that they're degrading the learning environment for others.
I think her argument would have been stronger if she had of listed more details about how the academic environment is being degraded. Upperclassmen helping with labs and offering to tutor some students doesn't immediately make it clear how it is making it harder for students to learn.
If there are students in the class who need help but don't want to go to the upperclassmen, then I'd assume the professor would have more time to help them. Overall I'm curious if the class is doing better or worse than previous classes.
100 level classes barely qualify as academic, and we must have had very different academic experiences if you believe that “most students… with no intention of learning… keep their mouths shut”.
There has always been a population of students that attend college/uni with seemingly no higher goal than scoring and making life worse for everyone around them. The only interesting development here is that the published diversity data has allowed them to finally create Scumbaggery as a Service.
Birth rates are tanking because of increased access to contraceptives and people having the wealth and freedom to enjoy their 20s and 30s unburdened by children
> people having the wealth and freedom to enjoy their 20s and 30s unburdened by children
and people *not* having the wealth and freedom to have children, being burdened by 80+ hour work weeks to pay rent on a place they'll never own or have capital in.
Listen to the millenials and gen z'ers before you make bold accusations.
Unintended pregnancies have continued to rise among the poor and fall among the wealthy (including folks with decent birth control who don't think they can afford a child) for decades now.
I spent some time researching this after reading your comment, not a lot admittedly. There seems to be a great deal of uncertainty around the topic but I came away with the impression the parent comment is closer to the truth than your own.
My wife and I are having a very hard time convincing ourselves to have kids for exactly this reason.
We're wealthy, free to pursue our hobbies, and advance in our careers. Nobody's body is getting wrecked, nobody's free time and sleep is getting upended, and it's generally a Very Good Time.
Both having kids and not having kids feels selfish for different reasons. It's hard to really feel like there's a right answer here.
I strongly recommend against it. We had kids and it has wrecked our mid 30s and early 40s. It’s only going to work out because I made prudent investments earlier in life and built a robust network of colleagues who help ensure I’m fully employed at all times. Embrace what you have, life is short. Don’t sacrifice happiness for FOMO.
What argument is there for "not having kids" being selfish? I guess by the strictest definition, it means you're taking time for yourself over some hypothetical child? But to me, selfishness requires someone you're harming by doing so, and that child doesn't exist, so there is no harm.
For what it's worth, my partner and I have made the same decision. We're not having children. It's already too difficult to buy a home here in Brisbane, let alone with the spectre of climate change related problems in the future. And, more to the point, we love our lives as-is!
It's a tragedy of the commons issue; if everyone decides as you do, the species stops existing, so not having kids is a luxury decision you get to make on the backs of the rest of the species.
Of course having kids is also selfish, as it's bringing someone into this world just to fulfil your biological imperative to reproduce; you create a human being that will (if you don't screw it up) love you for the rest of your life, and your gift to them is this fucked up world, forced to consume scarce resources that may already be gone by the time they're old enough to actually enjoy being a human.
Or more likely something within our food / water chain labeled safe and unharmful. Birth control pills part of the drinking water supply is a popular theory
I think one people miss is that lack of interaction can be a form of harassment.
>we routinely have cases where a young man is leading open labs as if they're a teacher themselves (in order to "wow" their female classmates, offer "private free tutoring sessions", etc). Some of the young students in my class take up these offers, and this further demoralizes other female students seeing this happen (i.e. only attractive women being offered tutoring sessions).
Imagine how it must feel to be sincerely interested, possibly struggling because they didn't have a great K-12 experience and thus didn't have things like pre-Calc or AP credits and then... being brushed aside so someone can "tutor" their crush 1:1?
Speaking as someone who's had the unpleasant experience of having someone treat me differently at work based on if I'm "datable", it's incredibly demoralizing, it makes you want to leave an entire field. On my end it made me leave a specific strain of research, but had it happened earlier on I'd have probably switched majors entirely.
I'm sorry for your situation but this is just ridiculous.
You cannot ever harass someone through non-interaction, which is by definition aggresive and unwanted interaction.
People complaining the women aren't being offered enough "private tutoring" in a post about how men offering women "private tutoring" being harassment.
Being mildly autistic you can see why I don't date either gender with ridiculous sentiments like these being blown around.
>You cannot ever harass someone through non-interaction
Maybe not harass, but it's a form of discrimination -- only giving professional opportunities to people willing to fuck you is absolutely not kosher.
>Being mildly autistic you can see why I don't date either gender with ridiculous sentiments like these being blown around.
I'm also on the autistic spectrum, and I've never had an issue finding partners, and I doubt that complaints about tutoring are the reason your sex life has taken a pause.
>>Being mildly autistic you can see why I don't date either gender with ridiculous sentiments like these being blown around.
> I'm also on the autistic spectrum, and I've never had an issue finding partners,
This is a major difference between males and females and it is hard to get either side to understand the experiences of the other. As a guy on the spectrum who managed to cross over somewhat to the dating side, I have sympathy for the OP's confusion. You may also have some confusion, but it doesn't stop you from having a relatively normal life.
It sounds like everyone in the class can clearly see what's going on, which means there's probably not a lot of "tutoring" going on in these 1:1 sessions. So no need for the other girls to worry much about that. That said, even if they were I'm not seeing the problem. If two people start dating is one not allowed to help the other with homework now because it's "unfair" to single people? I helped my wife (then girlfriend) with her work in college. In fact I helped her in her 1 semester general optics course in the physics department when one of my majors was optical science, so almost the exact same situation (though we met in a math class). Should I have offered to help her classmates too? Does it make a difference that she's older than me? Or that the other students didn't know I was giving her 1:1 attention?
I get that rejection is demoralizing. Probably almost any man understands that. But we can't exactly expect people to prioritize fairness to everyone in their personal relationships, nor does it make sense to ban students from seeking those relationships.
> Imagine how it must feel to be sincerely interested, possibly struggling because they didn't have a great K-12 experience and thus didn't have things like pre-Calc or AP credits and then... being brushed aside so someone can "tutor" their crush 1:1?
Imagine how life must feel for these males, who, desperate for attention, spend large amount of effort going to classes which are useless to them, solely to get it (potentially). And then they're, IDK, reading threads on HN about themselves being _predatory_ and _manipulative_. Because they tried.
But of course, men don't matter. Can't wait 'till society decides to cull unattractive men or something - they're "dangerous" after all. I guess world war would be really handy, so that people unworthy of empathy can be dealt with.
I mean, seriously. You're blaming them for not trying to interact with people they're not attracted to?
Do you blame attractive women for not interacting with unattractive men? Ever thought about it?
> I think one people miss is that lack of interaction can be a form of harassment.
I don't think you actually think, that - be honest with yourself, have you ever spoke up on behalf on incels, claiming that they are actually a group of harassed males because females are ignoring them?
>be honest with yourself, have you ever spoke up on behalf on incels, claiming that they are actually a group of harassed males because females are ignoring them?
"Involuntary celibate" is a rapey, entitled, oxymoron of a phrase. Everyone wants physical affection.
I remember being distressed after the Elliot Rodger shooting, and discussing in therapy how I was... not like that... and still very lonely. I developed an eating disorder, because I had my PhD adviser and coauthors trapping me in academia by playing fast and loose with reccomendations -- only giving good ones if it'd benefit them getting tenure and keep me working on their grants, and meanwhile I had zero social life despite trying very hard.
(In retrospect, I should have taken a year off of drinking and dating and given it another go when I was healthier rather than fail upwards onto K Street, but that's a story for another day.)
Anyways... I'm talking about refusing to tutor someone unless they're pretty, not refusing to date them.
If you shut down any "fatties" or "uggos" who ask you how to smash the stack, you're engaging in a form of harassment.
I'm sorry that correctly stating a fact (giving different levels of support depending on if you've got romantic prospects) is a form of harassment apparently triggered so many.
Not only have I not spoken up for incels, I've actively advocated they should feel free to exit this planet (sans spree killing) if they feel that upset about their dating prospects.
(I'm not in the best place myself -- I got some bad advice on how long it takes to get an EU passport, so I'm stuck in a country I don't consent to living in with no job prospects because I'm not some alt-right lunatic and tried to stick up for people. But at least if I decide to leave this earth, I'll do it alone. But at least I know I can dial out for a booty call if I get sad, because I'm not some weirdo.)
> Anyways... I'm talking about refusing to tutor someone unless they're pretty, not refusing to date them.
Yeah, still not harassment. Discrimination maybe, definitely not harassment in any known dictionary.
> I'm sorry that correctly stating a fact (giving different levels of support depending on if you've got romantic prospects) is a form of harassment apparently triggered so many.
I don't think you know the difference between harassment and discrimination.
> Not only have I not spoken up for incels, I've actively advocated they should feel free to exit this planet (sans spree killing) if they feel that upset about their dating prospects.
Are you or are you not claiming that $GENDER_A ignoring $GENDER_B is a form of harassment?
If you're making the claim that MEN ignoring WOMEN is a form of harassment/discrimination, but WOMEN ignoring MEN isn't, then you're experiencing some severe form of cognitive dissonance.
>I don't think you know the difference between harassment and discrimination.
Semantic difference. It's discrimination to only help the hotties.
>If you're making the claim that MEN ignoring WOMEN is a form of harassment/discrimination, but WOMEN ignoring MEN isn't, then you're experiencing some severe form of cognitive dissonance.
I've had folks politely turn down coffee, but I literally never had a female classmate refuse to help me with something related to an engineering course.
> >I don't think you know the difference between harassment and discrimination.
> Semantic difference. It's discrimination to only help the hotties.
>If you're making the claim that MEN ignoring WOMEN is a form of harassment/discrimination, but WOMEN ignoring MEN isn't, then you're experiencing some severe form of cognitive dissonance.
> I've had folks politely turn down coffee, but I literally never had a female classmate refuse to help me with something related to an engineering course.
Are you or are you not claiming that $GENDER_A ignoring $GENDER_B is a form of harassment?
Infact, that's exactly how high fertility societies operate. At least the Islamic ones, like Afghanistan for example, where the population doubled since 2001.
Fertility has been dropping since the 80s, long before anything to do with wokeism or meetoo or whatever.
In those societies, 'dating' may be highly regulated, but it is present and functional, however immoral to women's rights.
But in our free societies, where dating and romance are left to chance, we are one by one prohibiting it in the places where that chance might occur, and not replacing them with anything. Not at school, not at the workplace, not outside the workplace if you are in the same profession and there might be a perceived "imbalance of power"...
That doesn't eliminate everyone you meet and get to know, but it eliminates most.
I don't think the population is doubling in Afghanistan because of segregated school classes. There might be another confounding factor you're forgetting...
> It seems increasingly that society demands a world where dating only happens during designated and approved dating times and venues
Isn't that the definition of "dating" though? If you're not at a previously designated "date" you're not really dating, you're just hanging out as friends. You can still try to show off good qualities that would hopefully raise the other person's interest. Sometimes people who hang out as friends even get involved quite closely romantically prior to having any formal "date" together.
it is, and that's the problem. in my opinion, dating is really the wrong way to meet a partner. it is a high-stakes activity where the first impression decides everything without any second chances.
Sometimes people who hang out as friends even get involved quite closely romantically
because that is really the better way to find a partner. someone you already know and are friends with.
There is a strong correlation with a puritanical culture having much higher birth rates than a sexually permissive one, so I don't think that is the reason.
We have moved from a sexually permissive society 60/70/80s 90s.. but sex is now taboo under the thought of children seeing content and being abused by the experience and children being allowed in previously adult spaces.
Ever wonder why murdering, killing, blood, guns are allowed on prime time tv but naked breasts are not? It use to be the opposite.
Your tv example is severely outdated. Do you know how easy it is for anyone with an internet connection to watch hardcore pornography on demand for free? It's been that way since the internet went mainstream.
It might be a bit harsh to say "society demands". Society created that dating service, and, apparently, society accepted it eagerly enough for that to be seen as a problem by some other part of that society, which then came about complaining on academia.stackexchange.com.
I'm not even trying to say that the former is a majority that represents the real desires of the "society", and the latter is a vocal minority: I don't have the data for that (even though I suspect that might be the case — but again, I don't know). I'm trying to say, that I'm wary of such wording, because it contains an implicit assertion that some part of the society isn't really a part of society and what it demands doesn't count. Because society demands this and that, and whoever wants anything else, isn't the society: at best, it's a sore spot on the body of the society, which should be treated as such, by applying a medicine to cure that... thing. Which is rather totalitarian worldview.
So, I get what you are trying to say, but even just by saying it like that you kinda help the cause you are supposedly against.
I'm not sure whether to classify this approach to dating as merely dishonest or actively predatory. In either case, I'd hope that I would have imparted enough sense and wisdom to my children that they could see through such transparent attempts at manipulation.
serious question, are deliberately ignoring the context of the question to post your victimizing dribble? it's male seniors borderline harassing freshman woman, not "someone asked someone else on a date in my class!"
> ...society demands a world where dating only happens during designated and approved dating times and venues...
It's not so much "society", as it being groups with extreme contempt, misandry, and hostility towards heterosexual males, that have pushed a very distorted narrative. That is acting like all heterosexual males are a constant danger and threat, in which all women in their presence must feel uncomfortable and under continual harassment. Leaders and advocates of such groups with negative views about men, act like they speak for all other women, and are continually attempting to push these biased and actually hateful agendas.
So we get placed more into situations where any actions initiated by heterosexual males, is perceived by such groups as aggressive or predatory. Asking someone out for a date, asking women questions, heterosexual flirting... easily becomes demonized. Despite how such is unfair, illogical, and opposed to biology. It should be no more of a "threat" or "violation" for a man to ask a woman out, as a woman to ask a man or another woman out (note the included cases).
Furthermore, many heterosexual males are afraid to even ask women out, for fear of rejection or embarrassment. Lots of guys can't do it or seek advice. Asking out the opposite gender is not something that needs to be so tightly regulated, unless its truly a case where the person has repeatedly said no (thus actual harassment), is stalking, blackmail, extortion, etc... And in that context, women are equally capable of harassment, stalking, blackmail, etc...
> men are to behave as eunuchs, and all prospects of romance are to be extinguished.
There is a trick being played here, to get to that misandric destination that certain parties wish for. This is to stealthily and by defacto limit and restrict male rights, and give women extraordinary and special rights.
So, push the situation where only women would have the right or privilege to initiate the possibility of a date, with men or other women. Where if a heterosexual man attempts to do so with women, he would face the possibility and fear of punishment.
Think about what this teacher, who is so preoccupied with the dating lives of her students, is trying to enforce in her classroom. Looks like if she got her way, she could actively restrict the numbers of male heterosexual students in her class, for any half baked suspicions. Wants to control the popularity of where heterosexual males want to go. Then seek punishment or expulsion for any male heterosexual students that might of asked one of her female students (like she's their owner) on a date.
Well that's the issue. It's not their fault. The idea of dating today has been reduced to hitting on people and jumping right into high commitment situations instead of slowly building a lasting relationship built in solid fundamentals, the kinds of advances which are rarely rejected in practice compared to just hitting on someone as if they are a checkbox to be ticked.
eh, i guess i get the point now. on a dating app atleast you have consent of some sort (they're both there, both signed up, both made profiles, both interested in a common goal)
whether it's "predatory" for a senior in college (21) to prey on a 100-level STEM student (basically an 18 year old/pre-college according to my friend), that's a whole different question from "consent to being hit on" in my opinion
No but there are social queues for this. Flirting is exactly that. Friendly small talk to see if the other person is receptive or not. If you're like me and are probably slightly autistic with very little social interaction growing up, then you'll be terrible at that. Perhaps this is the problem. A large number of socially awkward guys are joining these classes irritating all the young women.
The comment right below you is "the default should be don't hit on me" (in all caps) which kind of translates to "the default should be don't flirt with me", doesn't it?
No flirting doesn't begin with hitting on someone. It's a game two people play. They edge closer to hitting on each other. Each time gauging the response. If the other person is not playing you'll never reach the point where you're hitting on them. Neither party needs to lose face and it can simply be a polite chat.
Some people just seem to know how to do this. For others its near impossible. I'm in the others group. When a girl was flirting with me in the past I sent messages to her that I wasn't interested. As I had no idea how to play that game. I didn't even know it was going on. Then when I was interested in a girl I tended to creep her out by being too awkward too direct. Even when I asked my wife out she almost dropped the phone as I shocked her by being too direct. Luckily we'd been friends for years and she knew me well enough to say yes.
Maybe that's what we should work on instead, along with making hitting on people acceptable for women too. That way, it's not just a male thing, and people can still indicate they want to be left alone.
It's definitely acceptable for women to hit on men, in fact there is currently a double standard in place in many cultures.
Two days ago at a party I saw a woman sexually harass multiple men without any repercussions, and she constantly apologized afterwards which somehow made it ok to continue the behavior all night.
Yes, that person clearly has unresolved issues to work on but the double standard is there and it's harmful in both directions.
If that's true, then the only way to let a woman know you're interested in her is after she has first told you. But that's a horrible way to make room for different personality types. Some women are assertive. Some are less so. Should the more reserved women just stay single?
Do the more reserved women want to stay single? Maybe they do!
And most people have introvert friends and extrovert friends. You meet safe and good people through friend circles and then they get you to meet the other person.
Don't you think it's pretty ignorant to pretend the only type of relationships happening between 18 -> 21 year olds throughout every college in America is exclusively "safe and good people met through friend circles" as opposed to two people just randomly in a class together where the guy typically just says "hey, what are you doing later? want to hang out/study together?"
I've had multiple conversations with women who are somewhere between disappointed and despondent that guys don't hit on them more.
>I mentioned to several of the people I interviewed for this piece that I’d met my husband in an elevator, in 2001. (We worked on different floors of the same institution, and over the months that followed struck up many more conversations—in the elevator, in the break room, on the walk to the subway.) I was fascinated by the extent to which this prompted other women to sigh and say that they’d just love to meet someone that way. And yet quite a few of them suggested that if a random guy started talking to them in an elevator, they would be weirded out. “Creeper! Get away from me,” one woman imagined thinking. “Anytime we’re in silence, we look at our phones,” explained her friend, nodding. Another woman fantasized to me about what it would be like to have a man hit on her in a bookstore. (She’d be holding a copy of her favorite book. “What’s that book?” he’d say.) But then she seemed to snap out of her reverie, and changed the subject to Sex and the City reruns and how hopelessly dated they seem. “Miranda meets Steve at a bar,” she said, in a tone suggesting that the scenario might as well be out of a Jane Austen novel, for all the relevance it had to her life.
I think the solution that leaves everyone happy is: start a conversation with that woman, but if she's not interested, leave her alone.
Look at it in utilitarian terms:
* If the woman you're talking to isn't interested, your attempt to start a conversation will create a brief unpleasant experience for her.
* If she is interested, there's a chance at a great, long-lasting romance which will benefit both you and her.
The positive utility from finding your future spouse is much larger than the negative utility from a brief unwanted conversation. So on expectation it often makes sense to start that conversation.
"[27/F] Why don't guys approach me? I even go out on my errands alone, or hang out at cafes alone (like, go out and eat while reading a book) just to put myself out there."[1]
(edit) removed link to avoid HN's flooding someone's Reddit post
What can be accepted as “it’s okay to hit on me right now”? I don’t disagree with your assertion btw. Determining collective social etiquette can be challenging, and I’m always interested in other perspectives to better understand other humans in general.
> I don’t disagree with your assertion btw, I’ve dated several coworkers years ago but have never been in a situation where me showing interest was indicated to be unwelcome
How close to the truth is this as a different take on your situation: "you slowly hit on them, and they wanted it, so they didn't report you to HR/make it a big deal"?
I would assume that if you indicate interest and the other person declines, you never bring it up again and you treat them no different than if you had never asked, that’s appropriate? I’d like to think that, at the topic’s core, it’s about empathy and respect for the other person and adults are still adults who can make decisions when there isn’t a power differential (peers, not in a reporting chain).
My question is genuine though and stands: when is it okay to communicate interest in someone? If the answer is never, it doesn’t impact me, it just feels very telling with the times (third places evaporating, and most people spend most of their time outside the home at work). If there is a line, I’m curious where that line is, not to leverage it but to respect it.
“Don’t be a dick” but you’ve still gotta put yourself out there if you want optimize for luck and possibility. To handle rejection with grace is key, which comes from emotional maturity.
> Data from 2017 shows that as many as one in 10 heterosexual couples in the US say that they met at work. Considering some data shows people in the US between the ages of 20 and 50 spend nearly four times as much time with colleagues than they do with friends, this seems all but bound to happen.
Women signal interest or a lack thereof in a thousand ways. Picking up on that is a basic social skill and like all skills some persons are more capable than others.
Women have different personalities and indicate their attraction or lack of attraction in very different ways. Flirting for some women is the exact same behavior presented to everyone for other women.
If you want to know if a woman is attracted to you, ask her out and see what she says
> If you want to know if a woman is attracted to you, ask her out and see what she says
Sometimes she'll say no to test to see if you're serious or not and probably to test your social acumen too. Picking up whether it's a "no, I'm not interested" or a "no, but I want to see more" is exactly the kind of social cue reading I'm talking about.
And yeah learning that can be rough for people who aren't naturals and especially rough for spectrumy folks. Some of whom will probably even say there is no such thing at all because they can't see it. But them's the breaks. The reality of the sexual marketplace is what it is.
Taking no for no, and moving on with a smile to other women can show confidence, and maybe she will reconsider and take steps to get back into your social life.
In general, asking over and over again hoping for a different answer can signal desperation.
So it turns out in this situation, the spectrumy response of just taking a response at face value, can also be the best strategy for the "sexual marketplace".
That is in addition to it just being the right and decent thing to do, of course.
that's a huge problem with this too. you can say there are two camps, flirting (warranted or unwarranted can be ignored) and "hitting on". i'm sure some can argue it's a subtle vs not so subtle difference
you're asking socially awkward + nervous + scared guys to 1. go out of their comfort zone and smoothly create inorganically an opportunity to strike up a conversation with someone, and 2. sprinkle in something that is considered flirtatious but not too strong that it falls under the category of "hitting on"
Yes, “basic” means fundamental, not simple. And for a sexually reproducing species reading the social cues of the opposite sex is indeed of fundamental importance, modulo outright barbarism.
I said subtle because I am not inexperienced in this area and these "signals" absolutely are subtle/ambiguous a decent portion of the time. And clearly you do need to track all 1000, otherwise how would you know if someone is trying to "signal interest or a lack thereof"? If I'm not paying attention to that one signal and they use it, then I'm missing the signal.
Indeed, I didn't say subtle because I thought it was so obvious it went without saying. My bad.
Now why these social cues are so often subtle or ambiguous is itself an interesting question. It's not one I have any good answers to though. In this area, as in most, I'm a phenomenologist and not a theorist. Needless to say the phenomenology I've developed precludes telling a woman I'm interested in about the phenomenology I've developed. Except of course when I think she might find it attractive. Human social interactions are marvelously complex. Frankly my inclination to start navel gazing has set me back once or twice.
If you want to learn it, just practice. It will take time. It will probably be worth it.
BTW, I’m not talking about PUA stuff here. Rather, I would think of it as practising the art of conversation, and cultivating a curiousness about other people.
> If you want to learn it, just practice. It will take time. It will probably be worth it.
A skill that you need to practice with dedication and that "takes time" to learn still doesn't sound basic.
As someone that has participated in lots of flirting, conversation, and curiousness about other people, I can say confidently that being curious and being good at conversation are not sufficient to navigate flirtatious behavior successfully, unless you're using "art of conversation" as a huge umbrella term which includes charisma / etc. If you are doing that, then I'll note that probably the majority of people on Earth have not mastered the art of conversation (or even cultivated it much) by such a broad definition.
Let me clarify: You don't pork out during your academic day; you get acquainted during the day to get the ball rolling, and then proceed with the porking once you've punched out and are now spending your private time.
So what, you're hoping that potential love interests just stagnate like you and don't date and find other partners? No. This is highly unrealistic of normal young men and women.
It's one thing to become familiar and make friends with people around you, that's just the natural order of society.
It's completely another to pork yourself out in environments and situations unfit or not intended for such purposes. You ostensibly go to class to learn, not (eventually) fuck.
The problem about that is the exact opposite is happening. There is a teacher who wants to interject herself into the private lives of her adult students, have full control over how they meet, control their sexual interactions, and exert excessive influence outside of her classroom. She is attempting to force her beliefs on how people should form personal or sexual relationships, by taking advantage of her position as a teacher.
This "porking" you are referring to is not happening inside of her classroom, it's outside. The adult students should have the freedom to associate with whoever they want to, for whatever reasons they want to, as long as its legal and consenting. If any of the individual adult female students have an actual complaint of harassment, they can bring that case directly.
The teacher in question didn't personally like the nature of the associations being made among her adult students, and seeks to stop any possibility of "porking" through multiple public and elaborate means. To include attempting to indirectly shame all parties involved and force the school's hand.
I admit I didn't bother to read the link because this whole subject is stupid. If the porking isn't adversely affecting the class nor other students during class nor faculty thereof, then whatever the students are doing is of no concern to the teacher.
I don't see why this matters. Two people like each other? Why does it matter where it's happening or what the context is? It's probably more natural and humanizing to treat people like humans instead of objects you cannot have feelings for too.
>Why does it matter where it's happening or what the context is?
If it disturbs the surrounding environment (eg: inhibits work to be done, disrupts classes to be held, etc.), yes it does matter where and how it happens.
A love life is a strictly private affair; if it intrudes into professional, academic, or otherwise not-private time then you are doing it wrong.
It seems increasingly that society demands a world where dating only happens during designated and approved dating times and venues, and outside those strictly delimited places, men are to behave as eunuchs, and all prospects of romance are to be extinguished.
Then wonder why marriage and fertility rates are tanking.