Caught Staring: A Guide to Etiquette for Opposite Sex Interactions

[Galteeth]

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

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

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

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

There you go. That's the it right there. The OP believed they were doing something wrong, hence they got "caught."
I think, and have to be careful here, because this could easily be misintrepreted, this is sort of the essence of the problem he is describing.
Generally, if you think something is wrong, you are probably right. For you. That is to say, if you feel guilty or are going against your moral instincts, this will have an overall efect on your actions.

Which is not the same thing as saying people who believe they are right actually are.

I went to spring break one time, and my friend was confused that people could check out girls and it seemed socially acceptable. He has sort of a sleazy view on women, so this view makes sense fr him, because he is projecting his own nature onto others. But for many, it is just part of an interaction that is normal in that setting. Their is no need for guilt, because they're not doing anything wrong.


On a slightly tangenital note, i think this is why you see child rape as such a recurring problem in christianity. It's like, if you see all sexual action or inclination as inherently evil, you are forced to conclude that you are an evil person, since sexuality is part of your nature, and you will act accordingly.


Edit: I wasn't referring to a mechanical spring, haha.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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

I apologize if I assumed what you posted while quoting me was directed at me and that "y'all" may have included me.

 

[Galteeth]

So, anyway, here's today's xkcd.

http://www.xkcd.com/642/

wonder if mr. munroe reads these forums.

 

[JoVieira]

I said there is no harm in looking not there is no harm in staring! There is a very clear difference! Admiring someone and getting on with your day or staring which in my opinion is a bit rude - to stand and stare can create discomfort for the person that you are vstaring at!

 

[FayeKane]

Here's your answer:

I'm very sure she was flattered when she noticed. The feeling I would have after that would be to blush, not to judge the guy. It's only rude if you continue to stare after she saw you were looking at her.

The fact that you say she "caught" you, and that you hid under your desk (or whatever the OP said) speaks volumes--none of it true.

The best thing would have been to hold her glance for half a second, smile slightly for half a second, then look down at your work. (Peek up later to catch HER staring at YOU.)

If you walk out of the room, make sure to lock eyes with her and smile again.

This short interaction, in itself, wouldn't be enough to warrant walking over and interrupting her work. That would be creepy. But it is a GREAT beginning if you see her in a less formal context, like at a mixer. "Say, didn't you catch me looking at you in the library last Monday?" Only this time, smile, and DON'T look away!

-- faye

 

[DaveC426913]

I apologize if I assumed what you posted while quoting me was directed at me and that "y'all" may have included me.

Har har. (Now I'm afraid to use smileys lest you think I'm being glib) Your response read as if you thought I was addressing only you.

 

[JasonRox]

Wow, people make this so complicated.

I like a girl, I will talk to her. Simple, and it can't get easier than that.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here's your answer:

I'm very sure she was flattered when she noticed. The feeling I would have after that would be to blush, not to judge the guy. It's only rude if you continue to stare after she saw you were looking at her.

The fact that you say she "caught" you, and that you hid under your desk (or whatever the OP said) speaks volumes--none of it true.

The best thing would have been to hold her glance for half a second, smile slightly for half a second, then look down at your work. (Peek up later to catch HER staring at YOU.)

If you walk out of the room, make sure to lock eyes with her and smile again.

This short interaction, in itself, wouldn't be enough to warrant walking over and interrupting her work. That would be creepy. But it is a GREAT beginning if you see her in a less formal context, like at a mixer. "Say, didn't you catch me looking at you in the library last Monday?" Only this time, smile, and DON'T look away!

-- faye

Hmph. Just like a woman to offer a reasonable solution.

Now what are we going to argue about?

 

[JoVieira]

Erm what beer we drink haha!

 

[BobG]

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

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

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

Yes, there is potential harm in it, but the harm would be the fault of the 'viewed' person (or fault shared with the friends that convinced her to make up her appearance in a manner she wasn't comfortable with).

Visual appearance is a signal everyone transmits, whether male or female. Your choice of clothes, your posture, your hairstyle, are all frequencies and information designed to attract the attention of some particular type of person. Any offense usually occurs because the filter was poorly designed and attracted the wrong type of person (hence I identify with SA's opinion that being overly hostile in response to getting caught looking is a little insulting). A better response than offense would be to realize a little filtering after the fact is required - in other words, sometimes a little discouragement to stop the 'stare' is necessary (some mild hostility could certainly be an appropriate filter - it, like the stare itself, just shouldn't be over done).

And I don't just mean the difference between revealing clothes and non-revealing clothes. The style of the clothes, the hair, make-up or no make-up, tattoos, body piercings, etc all play into deciding what type of person is going to be most likely to 'check you out'.

The only way a person is going to avoid transmitting any visual signals at all is to become a total recluse. Barring that, a person has to take some responsibility for the impact they're going to make on the world and learn to adjust accordingly - i.e. learn how to transmit visual signals that return desired results instead of undesired results.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, there is potential harm in it, but the harm would be the fault of the 'viewed' person (or fault shared with the friends that convinced her to make up her appearance in a manner she wasn't comfortable with).

Visual appearance is a signal everyone transmits, whether male or female. Your choice of clothes, your posture, your hairstyle, are all frequencies and information designed to attract the attention of some particular type of person. Any offense usually occurs because the filter was poorly designed and attracted the wrong type of person (hence I identify with SA's opinion that being overly hostile in response to getting caught looking is a little insulting). A better response than offense would be to realize a little filtering after the fact is required - in other words, sometimes a little discouragement to stop the 'stare' is necessary (some mild hostility could certainly be an appropriate filter - it, like the stare itself, just shouldn't be over done).

And I don't just mean the difference between revealing clothes and non-revealing clothes. The style of the clothes, the hair, make-up or no make-up, tattoos, body piercings, etc all play into deciding what type of person is going to be most likely to 'check you out'.

The only way a person is going to avoid transmitting any visual signals at all is to become a total recluse. Barring that, a person has to take some responsibility for the impact they're going to make on the world and learn to adjust accordingly - i.e. learn how to transmit visual signals that return desired results instead of undesired results.

This entire argument is tantamount to 'She was asking for it.'

 

[DaveC426913]

Wow, people make this so complicated.

I like a girl, I will talk to her. Simple, and it can't get easier than that.

That's great, but if you'd been following along, you'd have seen that that is not what we're talking about.

 

[BobG]

This entire argument is tantamount to 'She was asking for it.'

Yes it is.

That's a very neutral expression by the way. It's what you're claiming she's asking for and what you give her that would have negative or positive connotations.

She walked into the store like she owned the place! She ogled my sign! She even laid money on the counter! So of course I gave her a cup of coffee!

Whether 'checking someone out' is negative or positive depends on a person's view of sex. Rape is definitely bad (and for reasons that have little to do with sex). Some people would say unmarried consensual sex is bad, but flirting is okay. Some people would say any type of sexual attraction, flirting, or unchaperoned contact between two unmarried people is bad. Some people would say sexual attraction, flirting, etc is okay as long as you don't act on it until one becomes married, at which point sexual attraction should only be between the married couple.

I think the actions a person takes in response to the signals they receive (whether from a person or any other thing in their environment) are something they can control and they have sole responsibility for how they respond. A person has to receive and process the things they see before they can respond, however, and I don't think you can fault a person for receiving and processing info. That's an area where the person doing the transmitting has to take some responsibility.

The only common link between a woman "asking for it" with respect to being noticed by the opposite sex and a woman "asking for it" with respect to something like rape is that both are related to sex. Neither is sex, itself, and they're still two completely distinct things. (Ironically, isn't the idea that a woman would intentionally try to attract attention from the opposite sex one of the rationalizations for rape, as if attempting to draw attention was equivalent to asking for rape?)

I would make some exceptions, though. Sometimes, a person should tune the receivers to the proper channel (as much as possible, anyway). There are times when it's inappropriate to receive outside signals - on a date for example. Constantly checking out the football scores on the TV over the bar or constantly checking out the other women walking into the bar are both rude, with checking out the other women being more rude. The offense is in not shutting out the outside world and focusing solely on the person you're dating - at least to a large extent since really shutting off the entire outside world except the person you're dating would obviously be impossible. It's still focused more on the channel you're tuned to rather than ignoring any stimuli from the external world.

 

[BobG]

A slight diversion from the main topic:

If a woman is wearing a very nice perfume, how deeply can the man sitting next to her on the train inhale the fragrance before you'd consider it ogling?

Or is it different since the nose is an omnidirectional receiver? (i.e. - it's the looking directly at a woman that some might see as offensive vs noticing the woman)

Or does the offensiveness of the inhale depend upon which direction the man turns his head? (I think turning directly into her neck and hair, and then inhaling deeply, would definitely be a little offensive, but some of that has to do with the closeness - he'd truly be intruding on her physical space.)

Or, as they say, the quickest way to a man's heart is through his nose? (I.e. - a woman wouldn't wear perfume if she weren't trying to attract attention so it's perfectly acceptable to inhale deeply.)

(Life is so much simpler for women. They just toss a fragrance out there and don't worry too much. Guys wearing cologne or giving their date flowers have to make sure they direct the odor to woman's left nostril. The way to a man's heart? Through his left ear

 

[mcknia07]

Here's your answer:

I'm very sure she was flattered when she noticed. The feeling I would have after that would be to blush, not to judge the guy. It's only rude if you continue to stare after she saw you were looking at her.

The fact that you say she "caught" you, and that you hid under your desk (or whatever the OP said) speaks volumes--none of it true.

The best thing would have been to hold her glance for half a second, smile slightly for half a second, then look down at your work. (Peek up later to catch HER staring at YOU.)

If you walk out of the room, make sure to lock eyes with her and smile again.

This short interaction, in itself, wouldn't be enough to warrant walking over and interrupting her work. That would be creepy. But it is a GREAT beginning if you see her in a less formal context, like at a mixer. "Say, didn't you catch me looking at you in the library last Monday?" Only this time, smile, and DON'T look away!

-- faye

I like this answer, it makes total sense. Why can't more guys follow this concept

 

[DaveC426913]

A slight diversion from the main topic:

If a woman is wearing a very nice perfume, how deeply can the man sitting next to her on the train inhale the fragrance before you'd consider it ogling?

Or is it different since the nose is an omnidirectional receiver? (i.e. - it's the looking directly at a woman that some might see as offensive vs noticing the woman)

He can inhale as much as he wants (at least until his behaviour becomes mocking).

In this case, she is actively emitting chemicals. (Not the same as passively emitting photons.)

But I see some counter arguments about how the clothing she chose is active...

 

[JasonRox]

That's great, but if you'd been following along, you'd have seen that that is not what we're talking about.

I did follow. He got caught staring and debating what the approach would be. Then it was about someone mocking rape, and then kind of went back on topic.

It still comes down to... you have to talk to a girl to date one. So talk to the one you like.

 

[JasonRox]

I like this answer, it makes total sense. Why can't more guys follow this concept

Because the reality is, that it won't follow like that everytime. Maybe the girl is disgusted. So the looking back and catching her stare won't happen. There are so many cases.

Just like my prof. said in Graph Theory. If you find yourself caught into the if this, if that, and then if this, and if that, and so on... then forget it.

 

[honestrosewater]

(I.e. - a woman wouldn't wear perfume if she weren't trying to attract attention so it's perfectly acceptable to inhale deeply.)

What if she wants to smell nice for herself? Maybe her mom bought it for her and she wears it for her sake or to remember her. Maybe she wears it for her boyfriend. Maybe some salesperson at a store sprayed it on her. Maybe it rubbed off from her girlfriend. Why, of all the possibilities, would you assume it means she wants your attention? Maybe you were just using that as an example, and I've actually been meaning to ask this, so it's not just your comment that provoked it. I used to think that it was unfortunate that I can't wear what I would like to wear because I have to consider how horny guys will react to it. But it's not merely unfortunate because, really, if people would just not make assumptions like this, I could. And I was just thinking today that I would gladly give up the chance of meeting a potential romantic partner outside of official dating channels in exchange for not having to be the object of horny guys' attention every single place that I go. No matter what you wear -- skirts or sweats -- or how you look -- make-up or no make-up, hair done or undone -- or how you carry yourself -- sexy or strong -- or how you do anything else, someone is going to find you attractive, and a lot of them will let you know so. There is no escaping it. I never really thought about it before, and I don't usually think anything of it because I've accepted it as a part of life, and I realize that in most cases the person's intentions aren't bad, if they consider the effect of their actions at all, but its absence truly would be a relief. And also, being a woman does not necessarily make someone pitiful and weak and helpless. And also, I probably shouldn't wait until I am this annoyed before I mention something, but no one is perfect.

Huck,
I was just being cheeky. It only occurred to me because I find kindness attractive.

 

[DaveC426913]

This entire argument is tantamount to 'She was asking for it.'

Yes it is.

That's a very neutral expression by the way. It's what you're claiming she's asking for and what you give her that would have negative or positive connotations.

No I do not find it neutral at all. But it's not divided on a 'what kind of results' edge, it's balanced on a 'who is responsible for the results' edge.

The suggestion that she is inviting something is putting the responsibility upon her for what follows (whether good or bad).

Looking nice does not mean she is asking to be approached. And the corollary is that in order to not be approached, she is not expected to wear a muumuu.

 

[Huckleberry]

Huck,
I was just being cheeky. It only occurred to me because I find kindness attractive.

I was being cheeky too. I think I just play a little rougher than you, that's all. I find kindness attractive also, but if a woman is honest and free and aggressively playful then I have the same sexual reaction as you do to kindness. I like a little fresh blood in my morning coffee, as long as by the time the sun sets it's about knowing each other better and accepting that completely. Then every small kindness is magnified ten times because I can know it is more than a gift to me, but is something shared. I get a huge thrill just watching a woman do exactly what pleases her and knowing she accepts me just as I am, warts and all. That's the best kindness I can think of.

The thing about kindness is that it isn't always what it appears to be. Men know that women like kindness so they act kind to women not because they always are, but because they are reading your playbook in order to beat your game.

 

[BobG]

Wow, people make this so complicated.

I like a girl, I will talk to her. Simple, and it can't get easier than that.

That's great, but if you'd been following along, you'd have seen that that is not what we're talking about.

No I do not find it neutral at all. But it's not divided on a 'what kind of results' edge, it's balanced on a 'who is responsible for the results' edge.

The suggestion that she is inviting something is putting the responsibility upon her for what follows (whether good or bad).

Looking nice does not mean she is asking to be approached. And the corollary is that in order to not be approached, she is not expected to wear a muumuu.

OK, at this point I have to admit I have no idea what we're talking about - getting caught noticing an attractive female, asking a random female you see on the street for a date, or what.

In any event, approaching her would be an active response and would have gone beyond simply receiving information. (And, yes, I realize some stares could go far beyond simply receiving information, as well.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What if she wants to smell nice for herself? Maybe her mom bought it for her and she wears it for her sake or to remember her. Maybe she wears it for her boyfriend. Maybe some salesperson at a store sprayed it on her. Maybe it rubbed off from her girlfriend. Why, of all the possibilities, would you assume it means she wants your attention? Maybe you were just using that as an example, and I've actually been meaning to ask this, so it's not just your comment that provoked it. I used to think that it was unfortunate that I can't wear what I would like to wear because I have to consider how horny guys will react to it. But it's not merely unfortunate because, really, if people would just not make assumptions like this, I could. And I was just thinking today that I would gladly give up the chance of meeting a potential romantic partner outside of official dating channels in exchange for not having to be the object of horny guys' attention every single place that I go. No matter what you wear -- skirts or sweats -- or how you look -- make-up or no make-up, hair done or undone -- or how you carry yourself -- sexy or strong -- or how you do anything else, someone is going to find you attractive, and a lot of them will let you know so. There is no escaping it. I never really thought about it before, and I don't usually think anything of it because I've accepted it as a part of life, and I realize that in most cases the person's intentions aren't bad, if they consider the effect of their actions at all, but its absence truly would be a relief. And also, being a woman does not necessarily make someone pitiful and weak and helpless. And also, I probably shouldn't wait until I am this annoyed before I mention something, but no one is perfect.

As a practical matter there is really no way to go out in public and not be noticed in one fashion or another. If for what ever reason you'd prefer not to be noticed then its pretty much on you to come up with a way of preventing it. As for men approaching you and overtly hitting on you that's a bit of a different bag than what we have been talking about. Where I seem to be thinking really only of people observing someone some of the people in this thread seem to automatically think of someone who is "ogling" in a more neanderthal manner such as making grunting noises and crude gestures or something. That's beyond looking, observing, or "getting an eye full" as the case may be.

There also seems to be a bit of dissonance in thought here (not necessarily from you) which I'll talk about in my response to Dave.

No I do not find it neutral at all. But it's not divided on a 'what kind of results' edge, it's balanced on a 'who is responsible for the results' edge.

The suggestion that she is inviting something is putting the responsibility upon her for what follows (whether good or bad).

Looking nice does not mean she is asking to be approached. And the corollary is that in order to not be approached, she is not expected to wear a muumuu.

You can not avoid being noticed if you go out in public. That's just the fact of the matter. Anyone's mere presence anywhere 'invites' notice. You can not be a human being in a crowded society of social animals and expect to go about in it without winding up in contact with them unless you specifically authorize it first. So yes if you want to go out into the pool of humanity without being noticed that is your problem. Note again that we are discussing being looked at not being approached, harassed, assaulted, or raped. If you go out in public and get noticed that is your responsibility and "what follows" may or may not be.


It also seems rather funny to me that this whole argument is rather dissonant with the advice typically given to any person asking about advice here on talking to women. Invariably they are told by almost everyone to go for it, just walk right up to her and talk to her, ask her for her number, ask her to have coffee with you. So many people here seem flabberghasted that so many guys just don't get this. Then we have this long drawn out argument here. Checking a female out is invading her personal space. She isn't asking for it. You may harm her by it. Women should be able to go about their lives in peace without having to wear a burqa or a mumu. But why do these nice respectable guys keep showing up asking about how they ought to approach women I should wonder? Curious curious

 

[DaveC426913]

As a practical matter there is really no way to go out in public and not be noticed in one fashion or another. If for what ever reason you'd prefer not to be noticed then its pretty much on you to come up with a way of preventing it. As for men approaching you and overtly hitting on you that's a bit of a different bag than what we have been talking about. Where I seem to be thinking really only of people observing someone some of the people in this thread seem to automatically think of someone who is "ogling" in a more neanderthal manner such as making grunting noises and crude gestures or something. That's beyond looking, observing, or "getting an eye full" as the case may be.

There also seems to be a bit of dissonance in thought here (not necessarily from you) which I'll talk about in my response to Dave.

I think everyone's pretty agreed that there's a smooth transition from innocent look to ogle to hit on.

The argument is that some don't seem to care (or, perhaps, know) if they drift over the line. It was to this that I was addressing the 'potential harm'.

It also seems rather funny to me that this whole argument is rather dissonant with the advice typically given to any person asking about advice here on talking to women. Invariably they are told by almost everyone to go for it, just walk right up to her and talk to her, ask her for her number, ask her to have coffee with you. So many people here seem flabberghasted that so many guys just don't get this. Then we have this long drawn out argument here. Checking a female out is invading her personal space.

It is (or at least ogling her is).
And acting on it is a risk.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't occur.

Life is risk.


If this were about crossing the highway to go to the mall:
There are those here saying: 'Go to the mall! What's the harm? I don't care if something happens.'
I am simply saying: 'You can get hurt going to the mall. Anytime you cross a road.'
They: 'I will not admit that I should not cross the highway to go to the mall.'
Me: 'No one is saying don't go to the mall, just don't delude yourself into thinking there's no risk.'
(Excedpt that, if this were an accurate analogy, then I'd be saying you might damage the car, so...)





Anyway, I think I've made my case as best I can. I'm just reiterating now. I will try to back off and give this thread some breathing room.
.
.
.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think everyone's pretty agreed that there's a smooth transition from innocent look to ogle to hit on.

The argument is that some don't seem to care (or, perhaps, know) if they drift over the line. It was to this that I was addressing the 'potential harm'.

What is that transition? Two men can be checking a woman out and acting the same exact way. If the woman is attracted to one she will likely enjoy his attention and not consider it anything other than him checking her out and probably hope that it transitions into him hitting on her. If she is not attracted to the other than she may well consider the same exact actions to be uninvited 'ogling'. So where really does that transition occur except for in the mind of the person being observed? If it has nothing to do with the actions of the observer only the perceptions of the observed than the 'potential harm' is solely the responsibility of the observed. If you are a good and nice person who respects others' space and feel as though it is your responsibility that a person you check out or approach maybe be 'harmed' by your actions why would you approach them? You likely wouldn't. You'd be afraid, worried, nervous, feel guilty, feel like you should know better than to go talk to this person who is very likely going to be discomfited, disturbed, 'harmed' by your silly selfish actions... I'm glad you discovered this world view as an adult after you found your wife because I grew up thinking and feeling like that and I'll tell you it really sucks.

It is (or at least ogling her is).

Note that no one here is trying to say it is ok to make cat calls, thrust your hips out in the persons direction, lick your lips, and touch yourself suggestively while looking at a person. Nor is anyone advocating openly slack jawed, saliva dripping, wide eyed staring. If that is your definition of 'ogling' then realize that we are talking about different things here.

I'm talking about looking at someone. Observing them. 'Checking them out'.
That is not a violation of a persons personal space. As I already noted it is one of the most minimal ways you could possibly have contact with a person, to simply look at them. Photons being picked up by your eyes that have bounced off of the person. What is the difference between looking at someone and touching them? A vast ocean of difference. Touching a person is about one of the most intimate actions you could take. How do you relate one of the least intimate actions one could take to one of the most? It makes no sense. I might as well say that the other person is violating my personal space by being present, making noise, casting photons in my direction, giving off a scent.. at least it would make more sense.

 

[Huckleberry]

People's personal space overlaps. It's in this area that human interaction takes place. Some people here are calling it harm. I call it life.

A woman looking at a one way mirror or a darkened window might might get the same uncomfortable sensation of someone looking at her even if there is nobody there to look. Is her personal space being assaulted by reflective surfaces? The harm that is taking place is in her mind. Sometimes a man can see this harm happen with his eyes, and then it would be polite to look away before his stare becomes ogling. This distinction only takes place after she notices him looking at her. Still, he isn't responsible for the harm. She does that all to herself when she cares what any man thinks of her.

It doesn't make sense. With one hand it would be nice if men don't look. Then with the other it is upsetting when the guy she likes doesn't notice her. She isn't interested in meeting men sometimes and wants to control when an approach is appropriate, but if it is a guy she likes then it's a missed opportunity if he doesn't approach at any time. Is it really any wonder that so many guys are afraid to approach women? Is it really any wonder that some men don't respect these boundaries?

edit- I also don't see any difference on whether a sound or a scent or a photon is reflected or emitted. Using a thermal imager to look at women's warm bodies would suddenly become acceptable. It might help determine her level of interest.

 

[BobG]

Note again that we are discussing being looked at not being approached, harassed, assaulted, or raped.

I might as well say that the other person is violating my personal space by being present, making noise, casting photons in my direction, giving off a scent..

Not to be overly flippant (which means, of course, that I am), but I sure wish I knew about photons and the chemical emissions of "scent" when I was a little kid and my sister went into one of those "Don't look at me!" tirades.

I would have had a more appropriate counter accusation to take to my parents.

 

[tchitt]

Hey baby, I noticed you noticing me and I just wanted to put you on notice that I noticed you too.

 

[DaveC426913]

Some people here are calling it harm.

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

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

 

[Galteeth]

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

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

For instance, if you're one of those fellows who has their eyes extend a few feet in front of them, your tongue drop and roll out, and steam coming out of your ears, you could inadvertantly trip the object of affection, or even possibly scald her depending on your proximity and the orientation of your ear jet relative to her.

 

[BobG]

edit- I also don't see any difference on whether a sound or a scent or a photon is reflected or emitted. Using a thermal imager to look at women's warm bodies would suddenly become acceptable. It might help determine her level of interest.

There would be a difference between thermal imagery and visual imagery. She would have no reasonable method of control over the thermal image she was emitting - as opposed to the visual or aromatic image she projects. (Technically, a person can purchase camouflage suits that suppress a person's thermal image, as well, but that's not a very realistic option in a world where the average human on the street can't detect infrared light.)

If personal, portable thermal imagers became the norm, you can bet clothing products would come out that would allow a person to not just hide their thermal image - but control it to create whatever impression the wearer wants to create.

 

[honestrosewater]

Just to clarify, it would of course be a sad world if people were afraid to interact with each other. And my advice would still be to go after what you want. But for everyone's sake, try to have some tact. And if you can't manage that, just try not to be overbearing.

My problem was specifically with making unwarranted assumptions and failing to acknowledge your assumptions for what they are. Just because you find something attractive does not mean that it was meant to attract you. Period. Assume so if it pleases you, but you're just asking for trouble if you start judging all new information in light of your assumption rather than as possible challenges to it.

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

 

[turbo]

Just to clarify, it would of course be a sad world if people were afraid to interact with each other. And my advice would still be to go after what you want. But for everyone's sake, try to have some tact. And if you can't manage that, just try not to be overbearing.

My problem was specifically with making unwarranted assumptions and failing to acknowledge your assumptions for what they are. Just because you find something attractive does not mean that it was meant to attract you. Period. Assume so if it pleases you, but you're just asking for trouble if you start judging all new information in light of your assumption rather than as possible challenges to it.

We should at some point consider that stuff that attracts you might not have been intended to attract you, and you might be intruding into the space of your prey. At the same time, we should consider that broadcasting attraction (via visual encouragements, like really tight clothing and short skirts, or sensually attractive inducements like strong fragrances) the perpetrators intentionally attract attention to themselves, and can hardly feign innocence or indignation honestly if males are attracted enough to approach the ladies.

 

[honestrosewater]

We should at some point consider that stuff that attracts you might not have been intended to attract you, and you might be intruding into the space of your prey. At the same time, we should consider that broadcasting attraction (via visual encouragements, like really tight clothing and short skirts, or sensually attractive inducements like strong fragrances) the perpetrators intentionally attract attention to themselves, and can hardly feign innocence or indignation honestly if males are attracted enough to approach the ladies.

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

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

 

[DaveC426913]

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

Said more eloquently than I have been able to.