Caught Staring: A Guide to Etiquette for Opposite Sex Interactions

In summary, the conversation discusses the correct response and the thoughts of girls when a guy is caught staring at them. Some suggestions include responding with a smile and looking away, talking to the person, or simply ignoring them. The conversation also touches on the idea of establishing dominance and confidence through maintaining eye contact. Ultimately, it is important to pay attention to the other person's response and adjust accordingly.
  • #246
General question on this subject: When interacting with the opposite sex, how often do you guys think about this stuff (like analyzing your actions and such)?

Personally, I never give it much thought.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #247
Lancelot59 said:
I actually have to agree to some point, although it was his choice to do so. I can't see myself just heading off with some random person.

Come on man, honestly, you've never done that?
 
  • #248
Nope, although I don't get out very often, so that might contribute...also since I'm not 19 yet...two more months.
 
  • #249
honestrosewater said:
Yes, I admitted that I can try to influence them. I do try to influence people's perceptions of me, both to avoid and attract attention. The decision and responsibility still ultimately lies with the person who is attracted.
What decision? To notice? To find one attractive? Do you have a tendency to decide these things? Or do they just happen?

Rose said:
We are intellectual animals. Do celibate people not choose to be non-sexual beings? I'm not advocating celibacy, but its existence proves that some people do have that choice.
You're still making it too much about intellect. In the vast majority of cases these people still have genitals, pheromones, hormones, breasts, wide hips, wide shoulders, hair on their chest, or what ever sexual characteristic you can think of. Note that truly asexual people try very hard to look androgynous because they realize that they are sending sexual signals with their body and wish to minimize or stop them.

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

Also, I am not complaining about noticing or looking or being attracted or approaching. How many times do I need to say this? I am complaining about the implication in (4).
You send signals all the time. Unless you are a Zen master you really can not control it. Your presence, posture, gait, clothes, makeup, scent, facial expressions, ect are all information that you are giving off constantly whether you are intending to or not. Since it is information being given off by your person it is your responsibility. One might wonder "I did not ask to exist, it was not my intention, so why am I responsible for my existence?" Well one could simply kill one's self but that would not be very pleasant and really there are enjoyable aspects to existing so one would not likely kill one's self. Similarly if you did not want to be attractive to others you could become fat, wear ugly clothes, or maybe a burqa and such but these are not very pleasant things and you certainly like some aspects of being attractive to others.
If I scowled all the time and constantly wondered at why people always thought I was mad and treated me differently than others you would probably tell me to stop scowling all the time. And if I said "well I like to scowl" then you would probably tell me that that's my problem then.
If I dressed in bright colours like a clown and complained that people did not take me seriously and laughed at me all the time you would probably tell me to not where a clown suit around all the time. If I said that I liked the way it looks and think its comfortable to wear you would likely tell me that that's my problem.
I can give examples all day long where any person would agree that one is obviously giving off some signal to others and that if they don't like the consequences of that then they ought to change it. But when it comes to the way one wants to dress/look/act normally one's self they suddenly don't see this anymore. It seems to be rooted in the idea that you can choose to not give off signals but that these other people are obviously giving off signals and have obviously chosen to do so.

Rose said:
That reminds me, why do I sometimes light scented candles when I take a bath alone? You can't possibly think that it is to attract others. There aren't even any windows in my bathroom. I do it for the same reason that I sometimes put on lotion that I enjoy the smell of when I get out. And why I wear a robe in a color that I find attractive, made of a material that I love feeling against my skin. Surrounding myself with things that I find attractive makes me happy. It is not a silly notion that someone would want to find themselves attractive. People are forever trying to make their environments attractive, and we are a constant part of our environment.
There is a difference between your person and your environment. Scented candles in the bath may be nice but that is not the same as placing a fragrance upon oneself. And you may be able to smell the lotion you put on your arms and legs but do you smell the perfume that you place upon your neck very much through out the day?
And there are obvious differences between the manner in which you dress or treat yourself in your home as opposed to when you go out in public. Do you wear a robe out in public often? Do you wear your pajamas out in public often? I know there are people who do and they do so because they do not care and don't mind sending the message that they do not care. Others may do it because they think it is 'cute' and don't mind sending the message of 'cuteness' when they are in public.
So on some level at least we are aware that we are sending a message with our attire when we are out in public. While we may like our PJs there is a reason we do not normally wear them out in public.

Why do you find the clothes you wear in public attractive (assuming of course that you have dressed yourself in a manner you find attractive)? Do you think it is maybe because they give you the feeling of being attractive in general? Is it pleasing to you to know that others (not necessarily everyone) will look at them and find them attractive? And even if we disregard these things are you really unaware that what you find attractive others may well find attractive as well? You find your big pink soft robe attractive (just for example, no offense if you would never wear pink :-p) and you know others would likely find it attractive or unattractive but you don't normally wear it in public (just a guess). Instead you prefer to wear other clothes. Why? Are you really not making a conscious choice in the manner of signal you will be sending out to those around you? And if you find that the clothes you are wearing are attractive would it be much of a leap really to believe that you have an intention, on some level, of projecting an attractive image to others?
 
  • #250
Sorry, but there's a bunch of weirdness in this that I just can't let go.

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

Since I started talking about this a few days ago, whenever I look at a person [snip] this voice goes off in my head reminding me not to assume that she wants me to look at her.
(Emphasis mine.)

Pardon? Does a tree invite you to look at it? Does the sidewalk want your visual attention? Does that golden lab want your eyes upon them? Honest to heaven, a human being is walking down the street (or sitting somewhere, or wherever) and they are them, being part of the landscape. They're there, in public, being. Your eyes light on them. That's it. There's no implicit invitation to look or not. They're there. At times, it's impossible not to look because they are simply in your field of vision. You're over thinking this way, way too much.

Here's my caveat. Unless. Unless you exhibit behaviour consequent to your happening to "look" at another human being who is in a public place, that makes that human being feel uncomfortable, then you must question your actions.

Other than that, there are people everywhere, always, constantly, when out in public. You can't not see them and look at them. From what you wrote, the best I can figure you seem to want or need is everyone to walk around with a sign hung around their neck announcing, "It's okay to look at me" or "Please don't look at me". Which, of course, is nonsense.

honestrosewater said:
The surprising thing is that it made me realize that I do sometimes assume that the person I am looking at wants me to look at them. It depends mostly on some combination of pride, confidence, and modesty that I pick up on from them. It's such a private, natural, subtle assumption that it never stood out before. If something makes me think that a person doesn't want me checking them out, I stop.

I read this part and thought to myself that you must be possessed of some psychic abilities that I'm not. I don't purport to be able to read other people's minds about what they do and don't want me to do. Again, unless I'm, say, standing, invading their space, physically imposing myself upon them and they're recoiling from me, then, yes, I can, with some confidence, know that they're not pleased with what I'm doing. From a distance, looking at a person, though, no. As I said, I'm not psychic, and I don't pretend to know what someone else is thinking. That might be something to consider. In most circumstances, you do not know what someone else wants or doesn't want, generally, until they tell you.


honestrosewater said:
That alone means that when I am checking someone out, it's because I think that they at least don't mind. But a lot of the time, there is a dialogue that goes on in my head.

Again, that psychic thing. Or projecting. In either event, I'd try to avoid that if I were you.
 
  • #251
Bourbaki1123 said:
That isn't correct. Any woman could approach them at any time whether they are uncomfortable around her or not. I doubt the OP would have minded if that girl came up and asked him for a date.

You're right that any woman could make an approach if she is interested. It just sometimes works out for whatever reasons that people are afraid to do that because they are making assumptions about how the other person will react. Usually the assumptions are baseless. It's a person's own fear that destroys their will; their confidence in themselves.

I could be wrong, but I think the OP would have tripped over his own tongue if that woman came over and talked to him. I imagine he would be thrilled and flattered and completely speechless and terrified. I'm projecting here, but I did spend half my life just like that. The behaviour is the same, but admitedly the cause of it could be different.

Maybe if I ever do catch a woman looking at me I'll just ask her "Aren't you going to say hello?" That might not be a bad way to start up a conversation with a woman who caught me looking at her too.

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

What? You don't like cake? Everyone likes cake. You must like cake. The Queen commands it.

I agree that just because someone does something that other people commonly find attractive it doesn't mean that they were doing it for the purpose of gaining attention from random people or anyone in particular. In an absolute sense I would say Bob is wrong. In common practice I would say he is right. Still, it is an assumption.

Wow, I'm thinking I butchered your intentions on that one! I'll have to go back and see where that train derailed.

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

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

Not that it is relevant anymore, since I'm pretty sure I was misinterpreting your intentions, but If the first paragraph is true and wanting control over asking is wanting control over both individuals, then assumptions are permitted. No? If a woman does not permit a man (or vice versa) to have assumptions then wouldn't he be the one whose voice is being usurped?

I don't believe she can really usurp his voice in this manner anyway, because he doesn't yet know her intentions. If he acts on what he thinks she is asking him to do then he is usurping his own voice (will). You're right that she isn't asking for anything despite how she dresses or smells, but he isn't wrong for making that assumption either. Until the point where she makes her intentions evident to him he must operate on the limited information that he has available. Assumptions may be wrong, but it isn't wrong to make assumptions. It's practically manditory in social situations unless one wants to trust everybody they meet. Wouldn't that be nice if we were all kind, trusting people?
 
  • #252
GeorginaS said:
Sorry, but there's a bunch of weirdness in this that I just can't let go.

I'm not sure if maybe you are coming into this without having read all of the posts (which would be understandable since this thread has gotten awefully long) but your post has more or less echoed what Rose has been saying. You may be taking the one post a bit out of context.

I have actually been saying that a person sends out signals (or 'invitations') and Rose has been against that idea.
 
  • #253
If a girl catches me perving at her, I just scowl at her and say "Stop looking at me!"
 
  • #254
blue-velvet.jpg
 
  • #255
Cryptonic said:
If a girl catches me perving at her, I just scowl at her and say "Stop looking at me!"
You should search for BDSM sites in your area. It sounds like you need a nice submissive to help you get over your castration anxiety.
 
  • #256
Huckleberry said:
You should search for BDSM sites in your area. It sounds like you need a nice submissive to help you get over your castration anxiety.

Neh I need a dominatrix to give me castration envy!
 
  • #257
People make assumptions all the time. Planning and goal-directed behavior requires that you try to predict the future. Groups of people produce, both intentionally and accidentally, standards, both explicit and implied, to facilitate this behavior. I have been trying to contrast assumptions with knowledge regarding these standards and arguing about what kind of a standard this is:
My problem implication. if P and Q are people, P is sexually attracted to Q implies Q wants sexual attention from P
But maybe we need a simpler scenario because we keep getting distracted with the complexities of attraction and communication and people's desires and intentions.

Say you and some friends get a hotel room at a place you've never been before. You want to wash your face with some warm water. You assume that there will be a sink in the bathroom. Your assumption turns out to have been correct. There are two cylindrical knobs labeled "HOT" and "COLD". You assume that turning the HOT knob counterclockwise will let water flow from the faucet and the temperature of the water flow will increase to about 130*F within about 10 seconds. You try to turn the HOT knob counterclockwise, but it doesn't budge, so you put more force into it, and it still doesn't budge. You call your buddy Pete over. Pete is utterly convinced, he believes unquestionably, that the knob will turn counterclockwise. He takes it as an unbreakable standard that all cylindrical knobs loosen by counterclockwise rotation, and he believes that the knob is currently fully tightened because no water is flowing. So he puts even more force into turning the knob. After not being able to budge it for several minutes, he goes to get some tools, and your other friend Rachel comes over. Rachel is aware of the counterclockwise standard, but she doesn't consider it to be an official standard that the designer is legally required to follow. She also assumes that even if it were, the designer still might not follow it. She is also aware that she doesn't know the current state of the knob. She takes the observation that the knob hasn't turned as an indication that at least one of the assumptions about the knob's design and current state is wrong. So she tries to turn it clockwise. It turns and water flows just as Pete saunters in with a sledgehammer. So you come over and stick your hand under the faucet and get second-degree burns form the 200*F water. You turn off the HOT knob and turn on the COLD knob hoping for some relief. 200*F water still comes out of the faucet. So you try to sue the hotel for breaking both a knob-labeling standard and a water-temperature standard that you think should exist. You win on the water-temperature standard and lose on the labeling standard, though the judge admits that mislabeling things is annoying.

So... we all make assumptions and standards of different kinds exist all around us. Pete knows. Rachel merely assumes. I have no objections with assuming. I have objections with knowing. I don't want to be a knob that won't turn. Wait, hah, I wasn't actually going for a metaphor there, so don't waste your time trying to figure one out. My problem implication is not an explicit standard. I don't think it is an implied or legal standard either. I don't think that it should be any kind of standard because there is no way for people to control when others are attracted to them, and it is unfair to hold a person responsible for things outside of their control. I think it is also an unenforceable standard because the list of things that people find attractive covers the entire spectrum of human behaviors, so a person who wants to avoid attracting anyone has no way to do so. Some people find make-up attractive and some find no make-up attractive. So wearing make-up might attract some people and not wearing make-up might attract some people. There are no other options outside of wearing make-up or not wearing make-up. The same goes for everything else. So just by being alive, you risk attracting someone. I am not complaining about this -- I am pointing it out as something that makes my problem implication unenforceable.

TheStatutoryApe said:
What decision? To notice? To find one attractive? Do you have a tendency to decide these things? Or do they just happen?
They usually just happen. They happen because I let them happen. If I didn't want to feel sexual attraction, there are many things that I could do to avoid it. My experiencing attraction is a combination of how my body works and the input it receives. I do have enough control over both how my body works and the input that it receives that I could live my life with practically no experience of sexual attraction. This same control allows me to live a life largely free of fear, rage, or regret -- because I choose and work for that kind of life. That I don't live a life free from the experience of sexual attraction is my choice.

You send signals all the time. Unless you are a Zen master you really can not control it. Your presence, posture, gait, clothes, makeup, scent, facial expressions, ect are all information that you are giving off constantly whether you are intending to or not. Since it is information being given off by your person it is your responsibility.
Yes, I agree. You are responsible for the signal. You are also responsible for some reasonably-foreseeable consequences of the signal being received and interpreted by others. However, the receiver is also responsible for their reception and interpretation of the signal. You cannot put all of the responsibility on the sender.

There is a difference between your person and your environment. Scented candles in the bath may be nice but that is not the same as placing a fragrance upon oneself.
Okay, wait. If I am out in public, and I want to smell a scent, is there a difference between spraying it on my skin vs. on my clothing? What if I spray it on a tissue and hold the tissue in my hand? What if I spray it in the air or on someone sitting next to me? Is there any way that I can smell this scent while out in public without it being taken as a signal to someone that I want sexual attention? Is it fair to someone to prohibit them from enjoying a scent while out in public because someone else might also find the scent attractive? In what way is that a desirable rule to have?

By the bye, there are other types of attention. Maybe I don't go in public smelling like @$$ because it seems like the courteous thing to do. Some people use their appearance as a status symbol. Some people use it to attract friends.

Do you wear a robe out in public often?
No, but I choose almost all of my clothing for the way that it feels and looks because those are things that I experience. I know that others experience them too, but that doesn't change the fact that I also experience them and might care more about my own experience than about the experiences of others. You dismissed the idea of someone caring about how they appear to themselves, or caring more about how they appear to themselves than how they appear to others, and I am saying that it happens. And you admit that it happens:
I know there are people who do and they do so because they do not care and don't mind sending the message that they do not care.

Are you really not making a conscious choice in the manner of signal you will be sending out to those around you? And if you find that the clothes you are wearing are attractive would it be much of a leap really to believe that you have an intention, on some level, of projecting an attractive image to others?
Yes, I do consider people's reactions to my appearance. Yes, it is a leap to believe that a person was seeking some result because it was a predictable consequence of their actions. There could have been tons of predictable consequences of their actions. Maybe the person was seeking only one of them or trying to avoid a predictable consequence of some complementary action.

I choose to wear long shorts or pants and a tank top to go out running during the summer in FL because I don't want to die of heat exhaustion and I know that wearing less would attract more attention than I am willing to deal with. I sometimes choose cotton or modal because they feel and move better than most moisture-wicking synthetic materials. I wear sunglasses if I think the sun will bother me and I am not wearing a ballcap. I wear a ballcap if it's raining or if I want to discourage people form interacting with me. Lots of factors determine what I end up wearing whenever I leave the house. And sometimes sexual attention only enters the equation as something that I want to minimize. It's true. There is no arguing about it. It is a leap to believe otherwise. I usually end up looking what I consider to be hot when I leave the house, and I expect that some people are also going to think so. Sometimes this is exactly what I want. Sometimes this was not my intention, but I do not care. Other things were more important to me.
 
  • #258
GeorginaS said:
Pardon? Does a tree invite you to look at it? Does the sidewalk want your visual attention? Does that golden lab want your eyes upon them? Honest to heaven, a human being is walking down the street (or sitting somewhere, or wherever) and they are them, being part of the landscape. They're there, in public, being. Your eyes light on them. That's it. There's no implicit invitation to look or not. They're there. At times, it's impossible not to look because they are simply in your field of vision. You're over thinking this way, way too much.
Yes, this discussion has led me to look at these things more closely than I ever have before. I've thought several times that this has gone overboard, but oh well. Some good things have come out of it. I was trying here to discover why me and others seem to be talking past each other.

It is a projection to believe that other people have conscious experiences or intentions at all. I assume that other people do because I do and we are similar in other ways. So I look at a person and a tree in different ways because I assume that the latter is capable of sending invitations. If I don't look for invitations, I won't recognize them. I also won't recognize any other communications that they send (such as a cry for help or a sneer to leave them alone) unless I look for them.

Other than that, there are people everywhere, always, constantly, when out in public. You can't not see them and look at them. From what you wrote, the best I can figure you seem to want or need is everyone to walk around with a sign hung around their neck announcing, "It's okay to look at me" or "Please don't look at me". Which, of course, is nonsense.
Of course it is. That is a bad solution, but since you mention it, I think that it wold be nice to know how others want you treat them or interact with them. It would save a lot of guessing and misunderstandings and mistakes. It seems like the more information that we are able to clearly share with each other, the better. You don't think it would be nice if there were some easy way to know how a person would respond to, say, your flirting with them? I would like to know if one of my professors is single, but there is no good way to ask him now.

I read this part and thought to myself that you must be possessed of some psychic abilities that I'm not. I don't purport to be able to read other people's minds about what they do and don't want me to do. Again, unless I'm, say, standing, invading their space, physically imposing myself upon them and they're recoiling from me, then, yes, I can, with some confidence, know that they're not pleased with what I'm doing. From a distance, looking at a person, though, no. As I said, I'm not psychic, and I don't pretend to know what someone else is thinking. That might be something to consider.
Well, I was talking about assumptions that only really exist for private purposes. I wouldn't go so far as to call them fantasies, but they are something akin to that. I'm not sure how to explain it. It's just a thought that you sometimes entertain when you're checking someone out. Sometimes a person's appearance and non-linguistic signals seem clearly inviting or repelling. For example, a person with a .65 waist-to-hip ratio wearing a tight, short top and low-rise jeans that display a tattoo on their lower back seems inviting. But this appearance is only of any consequence to what I might end up thinking privately in my head or how favorably I think they might respond to my approaching them. Anything better than a shot in the dark usually comes from the way that they move or look at you. Sometimes my best guess is merely consistent with the information from them. Sometimes I don't attempt a guess at all.

In most circumstances, you do not know what someone else wants or doesn't want, generally, until they tell you.
Yes, I agree. (And even then, they might change their mind later and you need to respect this.) This is exactly the idea that I have been expressing, in almost exactly that same way, and people keep disagreeing with me about it. And they are people who I think really would agree with what I'm trying to say; we just seem to be missing each other's meaning. That's why I was trying a different approach.
 
  • #259
honestrosewater said:
My problem implication. if P and Q are people, P is sexually attracted to Q implies Q wants sexual attention from P
Here is part of the issue. I am not saying that you want it but that you are at least unconsciously sending out signals which attract such attention. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post but it seemed that what you had a problem with was the idea that you could not control these signals. I contended that you can control them and that yes they are your responsibility.

Rose said:
They usually just happen. They happen because I let them happen. If I didn't want to feel sexual attraction, there are many things that I could do to avoid it. My experiencing attraction is a combination of how my body works and the input it receives. I do have enough control over both how my body works and the input that it receives that I could live my life with practically no experience of sexual attraction. This same control allows me to live a life largely free of fear, rage, or regret -- because I choose and work for that kind of life. That I don't live a life free from the experience of sexual attraction is my choice.
I can not say that I am very much in control of whether or not I find a person attractive. Either I am or am not and I can not know until I have observed the person first. To avoid finding people attractive I imagine I would have to stop looking at them all together which comes with certain problems of being able to properly interact with society. Similarly you could stay at home and not worry about whether or not people will find you attractive but that has its issues as well.
If we can both take responsibility for our selves and respect one another then neither of us should be blamed for being attracted to the other and neither of us should be blamed for not reciprocating the feeling. And we can go on with our lives free of fear, rage, and regret (at least in regards to this issue). Even if one of us is incapable of showing that responsibility and respect it does not alleviate the other of the burden to do so if they wish to foster that life free of fear, rage, regret. So if a man finds you attractive and does not take well the fact that you are not attracted to him you will only hurt yourself to blame someone for his attraction to you (hence if you choose to care then it is your responsibility). And if I find a woman whom I find attractive and she does not take well the fact that I find her attractive I only hurt myself to blame someone for her not finding me attractive as well (hence a desire to not care what a woman thinks of me looking at her because otherwise the feeling her reaction produces is my responsibility).

Rose said:
Yes, I agree. You are responsible for the signal. You are also responsible for some reasonably-foreseeable consequences of the signal being received and interpreted by others. However, the receiver is also responsible for their reception and interpretation of the signal. You cannot put all of the responsibility on the sender.
See above. I am not putting all of the responsibility on the sender. Though if the sender has an issue with people finding them attractive it is their responsibility to alter that. The receiver is responsible for their reaction to the signal. Finding one attractive is not an action taken, it is only a reception of the signal. If you signal to me 1+1=2 I am not responsible for one plus one equaling two, I am only responsible for my reaction to that information.

Rose said:
Okay, wait. If I am out in public, and I want to smell a scent, is there a difference between spraying it on my skin vs. on my clothing? What if I spray it on a tissue and hold the tissue in my hand? What if I spray it in the air or on someone sitting next to me? Is there any way that I can smell this scent while out in public without it being taken as a signal to someone that I want sexual attention? Is it fair to someone to prohibit them from enjoying a scent while out in public because someone else might also find the scent attractive? In what way is that a desirable rule to have?
I am not suggesting prohibiting anyone from anything. As noted above and in previous posts I am also not saying you are telling anyone in particular that you desire sexual attention from them. Only that you are sending a signal for which you are responsible. If people interpret it as sexual and you do not like that it is your problem. It is not the responsibility of others to not like your perfume if you do not want their attention.

Rose said:
By the bye, there are other types of attention. Maybe I don't go in public smelling like @$$ because it seems like the courteous thing to do. Some people use their appearance as a status symbol. Some people use it to attract friends.
Yes, I noted this. It seems that there is a devision in perception of signals being sent. That certain people are obviously sending signals, whether they claim to be doing so or not, and are responsible for them but when a person is themself not intentionally sending out specific signals they seem to think that they are no longer responsible for them.

Rose said:
No, but I choose almost all of my clothing for the way that it feels and looks because those are things that I experience. I know that others experience them too, but that doesn't change the fact that I also experience them and might care more about my own experience than about the experiences of others. You dismissed the idea of someone caring about how they appear to themselves, or caring more about how they appear to themselves than how they appear to others, and I am saying that it happens. And you admit that it happens:
I admitted that some people do not care about the signal that they send. That is that they will wear the same clothes in the house, outside, at the beach, ect ect. (ie, wearing a bathrobe or PJs to go to the corner store). If you intentionally wear different clothes for different situations, such as the difference between being in your home alone and being outside in public, then (outside practical considerations) you obviously have a care of what people are seeing.

Rose said:
Yes, I do consider people's reactions to my appearance. Yes, it is a leap to believe that a person was seeking some result because it was a predictable consequence of their actions. There could have been tons of predictable consequences of their actions. Maybe the person was seeking only one of them or trying to avoid a predictable consequence of some complementary action.
You seem still to be implying that I mean that you wish people to find you attractive and approach you. I am saying only that you desire, on some level perhaps unconscious, to project an image and that if you choose to wear things which you find attractive you are intending (again, perhaps unconsciously) to project an attractive image. Only that you would like the people who see you to see something attractive whether that be sexually, artistically, intellectually, ect. When you choose clothes specific to the purpose of being in the presence of others you are choosing an image which you believe to be appropriate for them to see.
As I noted some people don't care. I know some people who will say "**** it" and walk down to the corner store in their pajamas and at that moment they do not care but still, in general, they will dress appropriate to a situation and the above described desire of a particular image being projected will apply. The only people I have met that truly and regularly did not care about the image they projected to others were psychologically impaired. And they generally had no care for the concept of being attractive, either to themselves or anyone else.
 
  • #260
I accidentally cut this out and missed it in my response.
Rose said:
I don't think that it should be any kind of standard because there is no way for people to control when others are attracted to them, and it is unfair to hold a person responsible for things outside of their control. I think it is also an unenforceable standard because the list of things that people find attractive covers the entire spectrum of human behaviors, so a person who wants to avoid attracting anyone has no way to do so. Some people find make-up attractive and some find no make-up attractive. So wearing make-up might attract some people and not wearing make-up might attract some people. There are no other options outside of wearing make-up or not wearing make-up. The same goes for everything else. So just by being alive, you risk attracting someone. I am not complaining about this -- I am pointing it out as something that makes my problem implication unenforceable.
I can not walk out the door tomorrow and be certain that I will not be hit by a car. I can stay in the crosswalk and only cross when I have the light and try to be aware of the vehicles around me but that will not always prevent what I am hoping to prevent. Believe me, I've been hit twice while crossing in a cross walk on the light and making sure to note the attitudes of the vehicles around me. But I have been hit far less than I could have been had I ignored any responsibility in the matter and simply crossed the street when ever and where ever I pleased.

So no, you can not keep all persons from being attracted to you at all times but if you seriously prefer people to not be attracted to you there are things you can do to minimize this. If you prefer not to try and to continue looking attractive then you get the same response I give you if you say you want to cross the street where ever you wish but complain that all these cars keep almost hitting you.
 
  • #261
TSA,

It seems like we are so close to agreeing. There's just one thing that I'm not sure about.
When you choose clothes specific to the purpose of being in the presence of others you are choosing an image which you believe to be appropriate for them to see.
Yes, agreed.
You seem still to be implying that I mean that you wish people to find you attractive and approach you. I am saying only that you desire, on some level perhaps unconscious, to project an image and that if you choose to wear things which you find attractive you are intending (again, perhaps unconsciously) to project an attractive image.
I am intending to project an image that is attractive to who?
 
  • #262
honestrosewater said:
I am intending to project an image that is attractive to who?

To whom ever finds it attractive. You may not be inviting people to approach you and speak to you but wish for them to look at you and think that you are attractive. I am assuming that you would prefer that people not think you unattractive yes? And you know that inescapably you will be sending out signals with the manner in which you dress and so of the options you choose 'attractive' and perhaps down play it or put a stylistic spin on it which will minimize the attraction of unwanted elements and possibly increase the likelihood of attracting those that are desirable.

I've been trying to maintain the usage of the word 'attractive' partly because I am not solely meaning 'sexually attractive' though if we explore the notion we might find ourselves discussing whether or not most types of attraction are rooted in sexual attraction. But I'll leave that be. There are many reasons that it is desirable to be found attractive, not just to get laid or find a romantic partner. People are generally friends with people whom they consider attractive. People are generally nicer to and more willing to help those whom they find attractive. More attractive people are usually more successful in their jobs. So to be perceived as attractive confers many benefits and there is no wonder a person would prefer to be perceived that way by others. With so many pressures and benefits to be attractive do you really think that you are not programmed to desire to be perceived that way? And act and dress in a manner to satisfy your programming/conditioning? Do you not see the pleasure that you derive from looking at yourself and considering yourself attractive to be connected to this programming?

We can attach this to all sorts of manner of dress. I had a girlfriend a while back who had been molested and so she hated to be perceived as a weak sex object. Due to this she dressed like a boy and many people even thought that she was a boy even after sitting and speaking with her. She said she was just covering herself up so she didn't get noticed. Do you think that she just didn't want to be noticed? or do you think she may have also been unconsciously desiring to be seen as male so as to seem strong and in control?
 
  • #263
TheStatutoryApe said:
To whom ever finds it attractive. You may not be inviting people to approach you and speak to you but wish for them to look at you and think that you are attractive. I am assuming that you would prefer that people not think you unattractive yes? And you know that inescapably you will be sending out signals with the manner in which you dress and so of the options you choose 'attractive' and perhaps down play it or put a stylistic spin on it which will minimize the attraction of unwanted elements and possibly increase the likelihood of attracting those that are desirable.
But there isn't a single "attractive" to choose. There is no such thing as absolutely attractive. There is only attractive relative to some set of people. I can get ready for a date and consider what my date might find attractive and what dangerous people like Pete might find attractive and dress so that my date will hopefully find me attractive and Pete will hopefully leave me alone. I don't need to think about any other sets of people. Considering what some people might think doesn't mean that I want anyone else to look at me or think anything about me, nor does it mean that I care whether or not anyone else looks at me or thinks anything about me. And sometimes, believe it or not, I care what I think and am indifferent to the rest of the world. Actually, about a year ago, I shaved my head. Well, not completely shaved; it was maybe 1/4 inch long. And when I did this, I cared what I thought and was indifferent to the opinion of the rest of the world, even to the opinions of the potentially dangerous ones. I thought it was awesome. (Surprisingly, I got a lot of positive reactions -- more compliments than with any other hairstyle I've ever had.) Do you think I was subconsciously trying to be attractive to anyone other than myself? I certainly wasn't trying to be stereotypically attractive.

Edit: I found a picture if you don't believe me (this was immediately afterwards (why I am covered in hair)).
 

Attachments

  • buzzed.jpg
    buzzed.jpg
    17 KB · Views: 323
Last edited:
  • #264
Hey you two. Get a room. Obviously you are in love. :wink:
 
  • #265
honestrosewater said:
But there isn't a single "attractive" to choose. There is no such thing as absolutely attractive. There is only attractive relative to some set of people. I can get ready for a date and consider what my date might find attractive and what dangerous people like Pete might find attractive and dress so that my date will hopefully find me attractive and Pete will hopefully leave me alone. I don't need to think about any other sets of people. Considering what some people might think doesn't mean that I want anyone else to look at me or think anything about me, nor does it mean that I care whether or not anyone else looks at me or thinks anything about me. And sometimes, believe it or not, I care what I think and am indifferent to the rest of the world. Actually, about a year ago, I shaved my head. Well, not completely shaved; it was maybe 1/4 inch long. And when I did this, I cared what I thought and was indifferent to the opinion of the rest of the world, even to the opinions of the potentially dangerous ones. I thought it was awesome. (Surprisingly, I got a lot of positive reactions -- more compliments than with any other hairstyle I've ever had.) Do you think I was subconsciously trying to be attractive to anyone other than myself? I certainly wasn't trying to be stereotypically attractive.

Edit: I found a picture if you don't believe me (this was immediately afterwards (why I am covered in hair)).
From one of my earlier posts...
Regardless of your intentions it is there and says "Look at me", "Don't look at me", "In your face" or what ever else.
I considered mentioning this before but I thought I was getting too long winded. I was a goth in high school and have plenty of goth and punk friends. "I dress this way for myself" is a common refrain among Punks in particular. Really though the more intelligent of them are dressing in the manner that they do as a protest against convention (ie, mohawks, facial piercings, torn up clothes, ect) and some just want to say "In your face!". The other reason that punks dress the way they do is to attract people with similar sensibilities.
So I would say that it seems your shaving your head was likely an outward expression of protest against convention, considering what you have already said in this thread (unless of course you had some practical reason which you have not shared). This may or may not have been attended by ideas of how people would react. Maybe not at the time of the decision but perhaps afterward you might have also wondered who might find you attractive (either sexually or platonically) with a shaved head and if perhaps they would have a similar lack of concern for convention. Just guessing though. But for certain I would think that outwardly saying 'to hell with convention' would have been the original drive.

I am certain that you do things for your own self and care what you think. I am also of the philosophical opinion that who we are and the way we act as social animals is all built upon our experiences and the conditioning of those experiences. So when you want to be attractive for yourself, no matter how much you feel it is only for you, the drive still comes from your being conditioned to desire to be attractive for others.

It may even be genetic. I started a thread a while back on the topic of seeing beauty or wanting to create beauty and the evolutionary drive that brought about that characteristic. I was drunk at the time so the ideas I conveyed were mostly rather poorly constructed but one of our members found and shared this.
http://www.unm.edu/~gfmiller/new_papers2/miller 2001 aesthetic.doc
The basic idea is that human aesthetics, beyond the plain physical form, evolved as a characteristic for sexual selection. So people may have a genetically ingrained instinct to make themselves attractive and find pleasure in doing so as a matter of sexual selection.
This is off on a bit of a tangent but I thought you might find it interesting. I enjoyed the paper myself.
 
  • #266
DaveC426913 said:
Hey you two. Get a room. Obviously you are in love. :wink:

I have been sending Rose PMs full of my adoration for her. She has yet to respond. I can only imagine that she is not getting them. :grumpy:





:tongue:
 
  • #267
honestrosewater said:
So my thinking is like this: A person noticing things is responsible for noticing them because it was their choice to be there, knowing that their being there would lead to them noticing things. Holy baloney. I feel like laughing and crying at the same time. It's of almost no consequence that someone noticed something, but they still are responsible for noticing it. They let their body do it. They knew their body would do it. Noticing is a function of what they are, so if they choose to stay alive and have a functioning nervous system, they are choosing to notice things. It doesn't matter that they don't necessarily know in advance what they will notice. They know in advance that they won't know this.
If I don't want to see something, I can close my eyes. If I don't want to hear something, I can plug my ears. I can leave. I can kill myself. This is something within our conscious control.

What is the problem with taking responsibility for noticing things?

I guess a rape victim can take responsibility for being there at the wrong time, after all, they could have killed themselves ahead of time. Then it would never have happened. Why didn't they wear a chastity belt at all times? Then it could have been easily avoided. Why didn't the guy who was shot in the chest wear a bulletproof vest? He knew it was a vague possibility that he would be shot: after all, people do get shot and on a daily basis. I guess it was just irresponsibility...?

Your thinking is quite concerning to me; the consequences of that type of thinking are absurd and disturbing as you can see above. That you feel so strongly about an internet debate is probably somewhat unhealthy.
 
  • #268
TheStatutoryApe said:
So I would say that it seems your shaving your head was likely an outward expression of protest against convention, considering what you have already said in this thread (unless of course you had some practical reason which you have not shared). This may or may not have been attended by ideas of how people would react. Maybe not at the time of the decision but perhaps afterward you might have also wondered who might find you attractive (either sexually or platonically) with a shaved head and if perhaps they would have a similar lack of concern for convention. Just guessing though. But for certain I would think that outwardly saying 'to hell with convention' would have been the original drive.
I had long hair for most of my life and it was starting to feel like a nuisance. One day, I saw a girl with a shaved head, and I thought she looked beautiful. That gave me the idea. I considered it for a long time. Initially, that people might have negative reactions to it was, to me, a reason against doing it. But I eventually decided not to care. It would be easier to take care of and cooler in the heat. And I thought I would probably like it. It was just hair and would grow back anyway, so I decided to try it. You said that if I did it to be attractive to myself, I must also be trying to be attractive to others. But you are wrong. I don't know how I could prove this to you. I was not trying to be attractive to others. I didn't care what anyone else thought. And just because I do something because I don't care about conventions does not mean that I care if anyone else knows this. I am not necessarily trying to express anything or communicate some message to people that I don't care what they think. That doesn't even make any sense. If you don't care what someone thinks, why go to the trouble to tell them so?

I am certain that you do things for your own self and care what you think. I am also of the philosophical opinion that who we are and the way we act as social animals is all built upon our experiences and the conditioning of those experiences. So when you want to be attractive for yourself, no matter how much you feel it is only for you, the drive still comes from your being conditioned to desire to be attractive for others.
And you will cling to this opinion that you know more about my own thoughts and desires than I do no matter how much I tell you that you are wrong? Is there any way to falsify your theory? If not, I guess this discussion can end.

It's certainly been interesting. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #269
Bourbaki1123 said:
I guess a rape victim can take responsibility for being there at the wrong time, after all, they could have killed themselves ahead of time. Then it would never have happened. Why didn't they wear a chastity belt at all times? Then it could have been easily avoided. Why didn't the guy who was shot in the chest wear a bulletproof vest? He knew it was a vague possibility that he would be shot: after all, people do get shot and on a daily basis. I guess it was just irresponsibility...?

Your thinking is quite concerning to me; the consequences of that type of thinking are absurd and disturbing as you can see above. That you feel so strongly about an internet debate is probably somewhat unhealthy.
How do those things follow from what I said? I didn't say people were responsible for all possible consequences of their actions. I said that they are responsible for some consequences of their actions, including the consequences that they should know are almost certain to occur. But deciding exactly when someone is responsible is a complex process, and I don't know of an algorithm for it. That's why we have courts full of highly-trained legal professionals following highly-refined legal processes -- and why even then appeals processes exist.

Why is feeling strongly about an internet debate probably somewhat unhealthy? What difference does it make what medium a debate takes place in? It seems that having cause to get upset would depend on the potential consequences of the debate, and I don't see how the medium has any effect on that. And if you are of the opinion that this debate is of no consequence, then what reason do you have to be concerned about my thinking?

And what makes you think that I feel strongly about this debate anyway? That I felt like laughing and crying was a way of saying that I find some of these discussions hard to believe. I did not mean that I was literally was on the verge of tears.
 
  • #270
Bourbaki1123 said:
I guess a rape victim can take responsibility for being there at the wrong time, after all, they could have killed themselves ahead of time. Then it would never have happened. Why didn't they wear a chastity belt at all times? Then it could have been easily avoided. Why didn't the guy who was shot in the chest wear a bulletproof vest? He knew it was a vague possibility that he would be shot: after all, people do get shot and on a daily basis. I guess it was just irresponsibility...?
There is a vast vast difference between being noticed and being raped. If male chauvinists and feminists alike could pay closer attention to the finer distinctions of individual responsibility we would not be plagued by these ridiculous slippery slope arguments.


honestrosewater said:
And you will cling to this opinion that you know more about my own thoughts and desires than I do no matter how much I tell you that you are wrong? Then I guess this discussion can end.

It's certainly been interesting. :smile:

I do not necessarily think I know more about your thoughts than you but that I can make an educated guess, just as many psychologists do despite the fact that most people think they have no idea what they are talking about (and I think you will find that analysis of the unconscious signals people send by their manner of dress and such is nothing new). I personally resisted the idea that psychology could say much about me but found that I was wrong when I was more introspective (as you have noted I can be rather resistant to others ideas ;-)). So yes, I may be wrong and I will admit that.

And thank you very much for indulging me this much. :-)
 
  • #271
TheStatutoryApe said:
I do not necessarily think I know more about your thoughts than you but that I can make an educated guess, just as many psychologists do despite the fact that most people think they have no idea what they are talking about (and I think you will find that analysis of the unconscious signals people send by their manner of dress and such is nothing new). I personally resisted the idea that psychology could say much about me but found that I was wrong when I was more introspective (as you have noted I can be rather resistant to others ideas ;-)). So yes, I may be wrong and I will admit that.

And thank you very much for indulging me this much. :-)
For what it's worth, I did stop and think about what my motivations and such were in the situations that we talked about. I do agree that my brain does a lot without me. :^)
 
  • #272
Approach 1:
creepy.png


Approach 2:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #273
rootX said:
Approach 2:


So...freaking...creepy...:eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #274
lisab said:
So...freaking...creepy...:eek:

I used to have an apartment on the corner of opportunity boulevard and rape drive.


On a non-facetious note, why are there so many people (mostly dudes, but occasionally chicks) who have absolutely no idea how to relate to the opposite sex? It's like single-gender autism or something seriously. (And yeah, there are female stalkers too. For some reason I have attracted quite a few of them. And no, it's not cool, it's hella awkward and creepy.)
 
  • #275
Galteeth said:
I used to have an apartment on the corner of opportunity boulevard and rape drive.


On a non-facetious note, why are there so many people (mostly dudes, but occasionally chicks) who have absolutely no idea how to relate to the opposite sex? It's like single-gender autism or something seriously. (And yeah, there are female stalkers too. For some reason I have attracted quite a few of them. And no, it's not cool, it's hella awkward and creepy.)

Gender-specific autism...ahahah...great concept, Galteeth!
 
  • #276
How about this place?

broomrape_by_AlysonAutopsy.jpg
 
  • #277
Galteeth said:
I used to have an apartment on the corner of opportunity boulevard and rape drive.


On a non-facetious note, why are there so many people (mostly dudes, but occasionally chicks) who have absolutely no idea how to relate to the opposite sex? It's like single-gender autism or something seriously. (And yeah, there are female stalkers too. For some reason I have attracted quite a few of them. And no, it's not cool, it's hella awkward and creepy.)

Aside from these people obviously having some sort of issue with needing to get attention and be loved I think it also has to do with the stupid over simplified advice people tell us all about dating and finding a mate. And then there are the silly, mostly unrealistic, romantic situations we read about in books and see in movies. We're brainwashed and sometimes don't even notice that there is a level of dissonance with reality in the ideas we are told and repeat to others.

"If you find a person attractive you should approach them and talk to them."
Obviously, as we have seen, this is not necessarily the case. While a person may welcome the approach of a person whom they find immediately attractive they are often more skeptical about just your average person. These 'stalkerish' type people will often approach others while they are busy with something or in a place where they are not expecting to be social and may well feel ambushed depending on the approach.

"Just be confident."
Aside from the fact that confidence in and of itself does not make one attractive you can not simply decide to "Just be confident". I've seen many people approach others with faux confidence and come off more creepy than they probably would have normally. One must develop confidence, you can not just flip it on like a light switch.

"You're perfect just the way you are."
No you are not. We all have flaws. Some more obvious than others. If you have dirty stringy hair then you ought to do something about that. If you do not shower daily, start. If you're wearing ridiculous looking clothes then figure out how to dress yourself. If you approach someone in your holey 1999 comic con shirt complete with pit stains and your hair sticking out every which way they are not likely to consider you the perfect little adonis your mother thinks you are.

"A [man/woman] would have to be crazy to not want to go out with you."
You are crazy if you believe this. Just because a person does not want to go out with you does not mean they need psychiatric help. Do not feel as though you need to help this poor crazy person by following them around and trying to explain why they obviously ought to date you. If you openly ask a person if they have issues because they turned you down you should probably go see a therapist to work on yours.

"You'll find the perfect person for you someday."
While this may not be untrue in and of itself many people seem to think that because they found "the perfect person" for them that this inherently means they are that person's "perfect person" as well. Sorry but while there may be "plenty of fish in the sea" after sifting them for ones that you find attractive you will also have to sift further for ones that are single and again for ones that are attracted to you and then sift further still for ones that may actually be interested in a long term relationship with you. And all that should at least make for a good start.

Stupid things in books and movies...

Persistence pays off...
No. 99.9+% of the time when a person says "No" it means no. If you persist in asking the same person out again and again they are most likely going to go from not being interested to incredibly resentful or even frightened and ready to look into a restraining order.

The moon light serenade...
Showing up outside of a persons house in the middle of the night to tell them how much you love them is really just plain creepy even if you're dating them to begin with. We are long since the days of Cerino and have these nifty inventions called phones and the internet though you probably oughtn't call the object of your affection in the middle of the night either.

The tortured soul...
Unless you're really hot the average person is not going to find your depression and self destructive habits mysterious and sexy. Showing up on their doorstep crying or dying from alcohol poisoning and cutting yourself in their presence should rightly find you in the custody of the proper authorities. Please get professional help instead of seeking an amateur nursemaid.



There's plenty more but I can't really think of them at the moment. Anyone else please feel free to add to the list.
 
  • #278
"If you find a person attractive you should approach them and talk to them."

Generally doesn't hurt, just respect when someone isn't interested.

"Aside from the fact that confidence in and of itself does not make one attractive..."

real confidence almost certainly helps

"...you can not simply decide to "Just be confident". I've seen many people approach others with faux confidence and come off more creepy than they probably would have normally. One must develop confidence, you can not just flip it on like a light switch."

Bingo. I have a friend who has this trouble.

I agree with nearly everything else you've said here, except..

"Persistence pays off...
No. 99.9+% of the time when a person says "No" it means no. If you persist in asking the same person out again and again they are most likely going to go from not being interested to incredibly resentful or even frightened and ready to look into a restraining order."

Depends on what kind of persistence. But generally this is true.
 
  • #279
On a different note, that Dimitri cat reminds me of another creepy guy I know in real life. The vocal patterns are so similar.

Edit: After a google search, this character is apparently a "self-help guru" marketing seduction techniques. I kid you not. his real name is James Sears. I can't link to his site as it is extremely vulgar, but holy moly.

Further Edit: I think I've been had. I think it "James Sears" is some sort of elaborate joke/viral marketing stunt. Or not. Dimitri claims to be divine, and has a creation myth where um, part of him goes back in time and creates the universe, sexually. This can't be for real.
 
Last edited:
  • #280
Someone seriously needs to kill this thread.
 
<h2>1. What is "Caught Staring: A Guide to Etiquette for Opposite Sex Interactions"?</h2><p>"Caught Staring" is a guidebook that provides tips and advice on how to interact with the opposite sex in a respectful and appropriate manner. It covers various situations such as social gatherings, work environments, and public spaces.</p><h2>2. Who can benefit from reading this guide?</h2><p>Anyone who wants to improve their interactions with the opposite sex can benefit from reading this guide. It is especially helpful for those who struggle with social cues and body language, or for those who want to avoid making others feel uncomfortable or objectified.</p><h2>3. Is this guide only for heterosexual interactions?</h2><p>No, this guide is for all opposite sex interactions, regardless of sexual orientation. It focuses on general etiquette and respect for others, rather than specific romantic or sexual interactions.</p><h2>4. Are there any specific cultural considerations addressed in this guide?</h2><p>Yes, the guide acknowledges that cultural norms and expectations may vary in different societies and provides tips for navigating these differences with respect and sensitivity. It also emphasizes the importance of being aware of and respecting personal boundaries and cultural differences.</p><h2>5. Can this guide guarantee success in opposite sex interactions?</h2><p>While this guide can provide helpful tips and guidance, it ultimately depends on the individual's behavior and actions. It is important to remember that everyone is different and has their own preferences and boundaries. The best way to ensure successful interactions is to always treat others with respect and communicate openly and honestly.</p>

1. What is "Caught Staring: A Guide to Etiquette for Opposite Sex Interactions"?

"Caught Staring" is a guidebook that provides tips and advice on how to interact with the opposite sex in a respectful and appropriate manner. It covers various situations such as social gatherings, work environments, and public spaces.

2. Who can benefit from reading this guide?

Anyone who wants to improve their interactions with the opposite sex can benefit from reading this guide. It is especially helpful for those who struggle with social cues and body language, or for those who want to avoid making others feel uncomfortable or objectified.

3. Is this guide only for heterosexual interactions?

No, this guide is for all opposite sex interactions, regardless of sexual orientation. It focuses on general etiquette and respect for others, rather than specific romantic or sexual interactions.

4. Are there any specific cultural considerations addressed in this guide?

Yes, the guide acknowledges that cultural norms and expectations may vary in different societies and provides tips for navigating these differences with respect and sensitivity. It also emphasizes the importance of being aware of and respecting personal boundaries and cultural differences.

5. Can this guide guarantee success in opposite sex interactions?

While this guide can provide helpful tips and guidance, it ultimately depends on the individual's behavior and actions. It is important to remember that everyone is different and has their own preferences and boundaries. The best way to ensure successful interactions is to always treat others with respect and communicate openly and honestly.

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
16K
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
32
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
68
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
48
Views
64K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
23
Views
8K
Replies
12
Views
11K
Back
Top