Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism

Elliot Temple
,
307

(All of this is half-baked unless otherwise mentioned.)

In practice there is a difference too: one’s illegal. That said, I don’t blame women for wanting to avoid it for all the reasons already stated.

I don’t really blame men for trying (to hit on women), either, but do think they should develop some game and keep plausible deniability in mind. If my use of “plausible deniability” is an issue for anyone I don’t mind explaining how I’m using it.

A less than ideal part of hitting on guests is the power dynamic (especially because accommodation provides physical security), but meeting women can be hard and missing an opportunity sucks. IDK, maybe it’s never okay, but I personally don’t like the idea of excluding people as potential partners just because the relationship is tainted by a power dynamic in some situation. I think it’s impractical to want the exclusion all of the time without some significant social restructuring.

This part of the conversation reminds me of something I read in a (public) chat a few days ago, slightly altered to avoid searchability:

whoever made [the app] must be a straight man because it doesn’t understand what the word ‘no’ means

I had some conflicting reactions. I thought it was funny (it was written as humorous), but also, being a straight man, didn’t like the prejudice against straight men. But evidently as a group we have a reputation.

One thing I dislike about the situation is that there is literally nothing I can do to avoid this prejudice. Becoming familiar helps I guess but some of the other stories linked make it obvious that even that isn’t enough (e.g., married couples). And stories from the left make it obvious that publicly aligning oneself with a side or with anti-SA views doesn’t count for much.

I don’t like that this is a thing. Taken to an extreme, in general settings, it means that any escalation by a guy is potentially a life or death situation and so to survive one should go along with anything. That’s bad for everyone.

If we’re talking specifically about power dynamics like couch surfing then it’s not so bad — there are always going to be situations where it’s not okay to make a pass at someone. Also if there’s money involved then it should be more professional.

I wonder how much modern attitudes towards sex contribute to this problem, too. For example, all of my long term relationships involved sex fairly early on, and it’s kind of expected that sex is on the table, potentially a few hours after meeting. Some of the time those hookups lead to actual relationships, and it’s not uncommon from what I understand from other people’s relationships, too. Were things any better when the common attitudes to sex were more conservative?

I also think things would be better if there was more acknowledgement that in some situations it is only acceptable for one party to escalate. There’s still often an expectation / social bias that men should initiate and that it’s his fault for missing an opportunity.

Do you mean distinguishing between two instances of being hit on, one that will result in SA vs one that won’t? Being hit on is easy to distinguish from SA, but with power dynamics actually consensual sex vs SA is not.

There’s one comment in the thread that doesn’t mention being hit on first and says:

I had great experiences with couchsurfing in the early 2010, until I didn’t. One night I woke up to my host sexually assaulting me. […]

I guess mostly guys would try for consensual sex first, but not necessarily all guys or all times.

That doesn’t really change anything tho I guess. Like unless couchsurfing adds a checkbox for “the host hit on me / had sex with host” (which has all kinds of other problems), the only solution is just avoid straight male hosts.

308

Since you mentioned you were brainstorming, what about supply and demand? Men often need to be more creative or meet more women to find someone willing to sleep with them than vice versa.

Also, I’m not sure women like dating specifically. They might do it a lot but it probably isn’t for the love of first dates.

Almost everyone likes consensual sex.

Do the first and third need to be there? Together the first and third simplify to something like “being thirsty” (wanting sex and never getting any), and that seems like a natural thing to feel (given there’s pretty strong evolutionary pressure to desire sex). The second (entitlement) seems like the main factor (tho not the only one). Also hot guys might feel more entitled if they’re not used to being rejected.

The idea that unattractive guys are specifically more likely to be rapists is a bad prejudice for society to have IMO. (Most guys are seen as unattractive in the absence of familiarity)

309

I’m straight and I don’t mind those comments.

I think part of the reason may be because you see it as unfair to straight men. I don’t.

Have you read Elliots article Capitalism Means Policing Big Companies · Elliot Temple and the discussion in the forum?

Previously, because I thought corporations and big companies were great, I would read anything that shared a general sentiment of corporations being bad as unfair and unreasonable.

Now I think they suck and I don’t mind the generalization.

In a similiar kind of way I think most dudes suck. So I don’t get bothered by comments saying that because I get where they’re coming from. Most of the men these women interacted with suck.

Also would you be fine if the women prefaced everything with most men (or a lot of men) instead of all men? I don’t think so.

Also, as a side comment, I think women are aware of this. I have some coworkers who have a lot of issues with guys, say things like all guys suck, and then acknowledge they have guys in life they like/are ok with. Most just suck, so they just say all.

310

Yes the article, no to the forum discussion.

What about unfair to you specifically?

Actually I think it makes a difference to acknowledge that. It doesn’t have to be a preface, either. The reddit OP mentions it in the last sentence.

I don’t think that constitutes proper awareness. I doubt that most men that women interact with are problematic in any specific instance (over the lifetime of their interactions). It’s hard to tell the proportion of men that suck in any specific way because 10% of men overstepping boundaries can produce a disproportionately large effect. That would still be a lot of men (approx 15 million men in the US; most would be like 75 m or more). That’s enough for a significant pattern, tho. Also women say men suck for all kinds of reasons, not just SA or boundary violations. This doesn’t mean they’re necessarily wrong, but it’s pretty loose for concluding that the majority of men are bad.

311

Ahh I was brainstorming on the rape part mb. I wasn’t brainstorming on why men hit on women in abnormal/different scenarios.

Hmm. Thats fair. Again, no first hand experience, I just kinda assumed they like dating cause the culture kind portrays that women like dates cause they can be romantic and stuff.

Fair. But women aren’t (in high numbers) doing bad stuff to men to get it.

Mmm. Maybe? But some cultures care more than others for example. I can’t think of anything specifically. Hmm. Something like how in America many boys aren’t considered men until they had sex. Idk if that kind of thing holds for other counties. I don’t knowhow that correlates though with SA and rape.

Point being, that I think caring a lot about sex (more than natural) can maybe make you do dumb things for it. Idk tho.

The third one? Mmm. Idk. I think it makes sense. If a girl, or many girls, are finding you unattractive that explains why you’re not having sex and therefore do something awful like SA or rape.

Mmm. Kinda. Like stereotypical unattractive guys, yeah thats bad. I don’t think its good to think stereotypically unattractive people like a nerd, fat dude, or some body balding are rapists.

I don’t think I said that though. I literally just meant someone’s unattractive. Whether that be looks, your personality, and whatever else goes into dating.

I wasn’t saying stereotypical unattractive dudes are rapists. I was saying a dude is unattractive and therefore may end up doing something bad because he can’t sleep with a girl.

Hmm. Really? That makes sense. Fair point. I’ve seen media portrayals of hot guys and they show a lot of times when they get mad at a girl for rejecting them.

312

I’m not sure about the media showing that specifically. But for high status men, yeah, and there is some overlap. (Or men who think they’re high status, also.)

My guess is that high status men would be more susceptible (than hot guys) to feelings of entitlement, especially if they incurred some expense (but regardless of whether they would have had that expense anyway, e.g., expensive wine).

313

Ill respond to the rest tomorrow, but I meant media more broadly. Idk if my usage is fully correct, but I meant stuff like movies, books, tv shows, anime, etc.

Idk about the regular media (like news and stuff right?) showing that stuff specifically.

314

yeah okay I might be thinking a bit too narrowly there.

315

Guys frequently fail at plausible deniability. It’s a cliche that women will reject guys and then guys will deny hitting on them and say they wouldn’t want her anyway, but people can tell he was hitting on her and also he’s emotionally fragile.

Can you think of any downsides to succeeding at plausible deniability?

If a guy feels like he doesn’t meet enough women, he should go to a bar or something instead of being a couch surfing host.

If someone is a really great fit for you in some rare way and vice versa[1], one option that is sometimes OK is to offer your contact info when they’re leaving without hitting on them. If they accept your info and message you, and the conversation makes it appropriate, then you can hit on them over the internet when they’re safe. If they actually really liked you too, the opportunity isn’t lost. But it’s pretty common that guys think someone is a great match for no good reason and they’re wrong.

[1] It’s common that a guy meets a girl with some stereotypical male interests (video games, sports, cars, sci-fi, etc.) and thinks it’s such a perfect match. For the girl, there are tons of guys who share that interest, so the match is nothing special.

Everyone faces prejudice. Women face more prejudice than men. Homosexuals face more prejudice than straight people. So on the one hand, yes society could be better, but on the other hand your complaints don’t acknowledge that tons of other people have more to complain about.

2 Likes
316

I meant distinguishing between being hit on vs. being sexual assaulted in terms of broad discussions of risk.

I was still basically replying to the original quote that I began my comment discussing:

In a better world, I would stand by this statement. They shouldn’t be lumped together like that. In our current world, I think it makes sense that they get lumped together in this way.

317

r/AskHistorians: In HBO’s “Rome” Niobe is told her husband was killed in Gaul, and sleeps with another man, but he later returns. If she had used “i was told you were dead” as a defence, how would that be dealt with legally, culturally and emotionally?

RPO777 answered:

This defense would likely not even have occurred to Niobe historically speaking, as adultery in Roman conceptions dealt not with the “criminal” intent of the wife in terms of her faithfulness to her husband, but in the loss of dignity that the husband suffers as a result of the wife’s infidelity. Sexual purity was a posession held by the husband, even the rape of a wife would have been dealt with as a loss of dignitas on the part of the husband and a likely legal basis for divorce.

This is not directly on point, but it should be a good way to recalibrate how you think about sexual purity laws as they were conceived of in Roman times:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=mjgl

The paper deals with how Roman law dealt with the topic of rape, and does touch on issues of adultery.

This line is illustrative:

"The various choices of legal charges for rape punctuated the paramount importance of the Roman woman’s sexual integrity. "Rape could not be seen as invasion of a right to choose her own sexual partner so much as the destruction of her chief commodity in the exchange which accompanied marriage and which she was not equipped to negotiate., 63

The extreme value of a woman’s sexual integrity can be seen in the way raped women were treated by society and their families. Instead of being seen as victims, raped women were seen as sources of embarrassment to their husbands and fathers.6 With the loss of their virginity, unmarried women had little hope for a marriage, and married victims suffered shame and despair.65 The requirement of keeping their daughters and wives untainted for their reproductive capacity was of such utmost importance that some families tried to dispose of rape victims, for they could not be trusted with their primary function, legitimate reproduction.66 Adding to the facile rejection of the raped woman was the fact that the rapist was usually conceived of as a stranger who penetrated the family and the home from the outside.67

Thus the rape victim could be considered the weak point through which the stranger was able to invade the home, and as such, the family might eliminate her to hide evidence of the past and prevent possibility of future encroachments." (Nguyen 11)

Under Roman Republican Law, the pater familias was tasked with determining the punishment for the action, and permitted the killing of both the adulterer and the “unfaithful” wife.

Generally, Roman Law required intent to levy punishment. However, in cases of rape issues, the law was primarily concerned with maintaining the dignity and the rights of the husband or father, who was considered to be the primary injured party–not the woman.

In that legal context, I think it’s unlikely if a wife’s knowledge of her husband’s status of being alive or dead would have mattered in terms of the “injury” that she made to her husband’s dignity.

1 Like
318

In theory, I think that uneven power dynamics and most other red flags ought to be primarily useful as potential problems to look out for. I think some folks treat them as hard lines, dealbreakers, never okay, etc.

I disagree with that. In theory. I see red flags more as a signal to pay close attention and navigate with care, not on autopilot following default cultural norms.

Hypothetically, almost any red flag could be fine within the right context. Elliot discussed one way to do that in this situation (wait until they move out, then hit on them in a respectful low-pressure way), I think that is a good option, but it might not always be the only option. One thing that comes to mind is what if the couch surfing scenario is more of a roommate situation with no finite endpoint? But one person e.g. has the lease or mortgage, so they could kick the other person out. So they have a power dynamic imbalance. Is it ethical to ever hit on someone in such a situation? Do you have to wait until they move out?

Not necessarily. In theory, I think it could be okay to have a discussion with a roommate about dating. I think there are ways to navigate that situation ethically.

The problem is I basically just don’t trust most people to be able to do that. The more I see of how this stuff plays out, and how guys hit on women, the less I trust that the situation will be navigated well.

I think a ton of arguably well-meaning guys are so bad at this that I suspect maybe the better advice is to simply not do it, ever. Hard line. Because if you tell them “it is okay to do it as long as you are careful” they may not know what that means or how to do that, and may think they are already doing that while doing the opposite.

Realistically, the situations I would consider to have a good chance of navigating that dynamic safely are like… the roommates hang out and chat for weeks or months or years, get to know each other and trust each other, and then eventually one of them acknowledges some romantic feelings and asks if they are mutual in a low-pressure way. And there is enough trust there that the person being asked knows that they won’t be immediately evicted if they do not feel the same way.

That could work fine! And be totally ethical! But I think it might be one of those things where… if you have to ask, you shouldn’t do it. If you aren’t clear about whether you’ve handled the red flag well, then you haven’t. So just make it a rule, and then some people will know that they are being so careful and mindful that they can break the rule.

Overconfident people could still mess this up. But a lot of them would probably mess it up anyway. Lots of people are overconfident and totally ignore red flags regardless of what guidelines they might hear about.

319

My guess is this couch surfing site has a lot of predators who join because they see it as a useful app to be predatory on.

But, if we’re looking at men as a group, most men don’t even approach women or flirt, let alone SA them.

320

I’ve read a lot of complaints on Reddit from women who find, repeatedly, that their long term male friends eventually try to date them, they say “no”, and then they lose the friend. Some of them get fed up with trying to be friends with men at all since they think most men who act friendly actually just want to date them and don’t really see them as friends.

If you know you want to date someone and just wait a few years, pretending to be platonic friends, then hit on them, get rejected, and the friendship ends … that was bad. You were basically lying to them for years by hiding your interest.

Sometimes guys even act friendly and wait for their chance with a woman who is in a long term relationship or married. This is bad.

Having to ask can indicate uncertainty and be problematic, but it can also indicate anxiety. Some people are perfectionists. Meanwhile, not having to ask can indicate arrogance or rational confidence. I don’t think having to ask is a clear signal either way.

1 Like
321

(Bold added by me)

Yeah I tried to indicate that I thought of the bold point when I made my comment about overconfidence.

I think in some ways the “not asking due to overconfidence” crowd might be irrelevant. Like they self-select out of this discussion anyway?

Disclaimer: This idea may be “half-baked” at the moment, as I am trying to think of the best way to articulate it.

I think it’s sort of similar to how laws constrain law-abiding people, but not criminals.

If you have a law that forbids an act, that constrains a mix of people. Simplifying a lot, two kinds of people it constrains are: people who probably would have not done it anyway, plus people who wanted to do it but didn’t because they were afraid of the law.

But the law isn’t really going to constrain an overconfident person who wants to do the forbidden act. They aren’t thinking of the risks they face in breaking laws, due to overconfidence. They want to do the act, so they do it, and the law doesn’t stop them.

Some people might also carefully and intentionally break laws when they think it is appropriate, e.g. they think the law is unethical, and they have taken steps to protect themselves from being caught and punished.

It isn’t foolproof to identify the difference between those two types of people that might break laws. You could think you’re in one category, and be wrong.

But I do think there is a meaningful difference between them for our purposes. I think the overconfident people might be basically irrelevant, because they were going to do it anyway.

Returning to my original statement & your concerns, we could break people down into 4 groups in terms of how they would approach something like navigating a red flag.

Group 1: Uncertain & Pushy — They aren’t sure they could do it successfully, and they’re right. They could not do it successfully under any reasonable circumstances.

Group 2: Uncertain & Careful — They aren’t sure they could do it successfully, and they’re wrong. They could do it successfully under at least some circumstances.

Group 3: Confident & Careful — Think they could do it successfully, and they’re right. They actually could do it successfully under at least some circumstances.

Group 4: Confident & Pushy — Think they could do it successfully, and they’re wrong. They actually could not do it successfully under any reasonable circumstances.

Now, you give the guideline: “If you have to ask whether or not you ought to try navigating around red flags, just don’t.” How does that play out?

The guideline roughly works as intended for Groups 1 & 3. Group 1 shouldn’t, and the guideline tells them not to. Group 3 should (or at least can), and the guideline gives them permission.

The guideline does not work well for group 4. But I think they were not gonna listen anyway. They are confident and pushy, they’re gonna mess stuff up and be pushy regardless of what advice you give them. I think they kind of don’t matter for the purpose of guidelines. But maybe I’m missing something here. Maybe the guideline existing will embolden them, since they feel like they are doing things the “right way” or something.

Group 2 might be unfairly restricted by the guideline. I believe that was your point here (bold added by me):

I can see that issue.

My intuition says maybe that’s okay, maybe it just encourages them to be extra careful. And maybe being anxious about red flags could lead to negative behaviors anyway, so it is still a real problem they should probably solve first. But I’m not very confident about that intuition, it’s just a guess.

322

Yeah, some. For “succeeding at plausible deniability”, I think success here means that he can escalate the social situation (within reason) and then either he doesn’t make a move (breaks plausible deniability) or she makes a move. If plausible deniability is just instrumental, then success can also mean getting to a point where it’s safe for him to make a move.

Thinking about couchsurfing specifically, and comparing it to doing nothing:

It’s inexplicit which can make it harder to distinguish from just being a social/helpful host, so she might say yes to something where there’s a mismatch of expectations. I don’t mean mismatch in the sense that she thought she was getting shown some local attractions and got a date instead (that stretches plausible deniability), more like social signals being out of calibration. Guys already commonly mistake friendliness for flirtation, and might feel like they’ve been lead on.

If she feels obligated to accept something like a tour of the city that can lead to wasted time, too. That’s not so bad, but it’s not ideal to end up realizing that she’s not interested half way through and lose interest, change one’s demeanor, etc. That could lead to issues.

It depends how much someone succeeds at plausible deniability, too. Like if the host succeeds to start with but drops it later on, then a lot of the problems come back.

[Trying to think specifically from her point of view:] If he succeeds at plausible deniability then she should be able to refuse a social offer without repercussions. I guess it depends on how far plausible deniability goes — just for the offer? or will his demeanor stay unchanged too? If she accepts out of social obligation then there’s a bit of a downside for her if she had something else she’d do instead.

From her PoV, I’m not sure there’s any big downsides if he maintains plausible deniability the whole time (which isn’t mutually exclusive with offering contact details when she leaves).

If success leads to sex or a fling or a relationship, then one downside is that the host/guest relationship can be strained. She might want her money back, or if that relationship breaks down then it introduces a lot of the problems from before and makes her stay way less pleasant (if she stays; she would probably want to find other accommodation which is stressful and/or expensive).

Overall I can’t see any really big downsides if plausible deniability is maintained.

Yeah. If it’s just contact details, you could give them to guests at the start too (which seems reasonable). Then just offer something about keeping in touch at the end.

Yeah. I feel like it’s also pretty common for guys to think an opportunity is dead when it isn’t. Like if they’re a bit anxious or awkward at some point and subsequently feel embarrassed. If she’s more than casually interested then a lot of small stuff shouldn’t matter. (But young people also tend to exaggerate how big such things are.)

Maybe icks are an exception. I feel like young women are a bit too sensitive to that stuff due to (in large part) social media.

323

I don’t think it’s being too sensitive in general. Lots of women have lots of bad dating experiences, so, on average, in some sense, they aren’t being picky enough. The problem is they don’t know enough about what to be picky about. Sometimes they’re picky about the wrong things. It’s hard to screen and judge people accurately. On a similar note, most companies are bad at hiring. These are genuinely hard problems.

A common scenario with plausible deniability is that she can tell he’s hitting on her, and she doesn’t like it, and she may even be scared of escalations, but she can’t accuse him of anything inappropriate because he can deny it in a way that other people find believable. So e.g. it would be hard for her to get a refund and go stay somewhere else if she paid for the couchsurfing or was in an airbnb or was hit on with plausible deniability in any other situation she paid for (e.g. being hit on by a teacher, barber, therapist, doctor, lawyer, etc.) but she had nothing concrete to complain about to a customer service representative.

See more downsides now?

1 Like
324

Yeah I think these are great examples of people who probably thought they were doing it right, when they were not.

I can see a guy taking the wrong advice from my example there. I think a lot of guys would read it and think “ah okay, so if I just pretend to be her friend for X years then that will be respectful and I will successfully navigate the red flag!”

No. You would need to sincerely hang out and be friendly and trustworthy. That includes not having a bunch of sexually charged ulterior motives. That includes wanting to remain friends after you broach the subject of romance in a low-pressure way.

A lot of men (especially red pill men) scoff at the idea of being friends with a woman before seeking romantic stuff. And they are right insofar as it often does not “work.” But a big part of the reason why it doesn’t “work” is guys often don’t actually do it in the first place.

Pretending to be someone’s friend is different from actually being someone’s friend. They aren’t interchangeable.

325

It occurs to me that if you are interested early on, and try to become friends, arguably my comments above don’t map onto you very well. I kinda frame it like… you become friends honestly, then eventually develop feelings, then acknowledge them without being pushy and intending to remain friends regardless of the answer you get.

But what if you are attracted early on?

I think my comments do still work but may need some workshopping. For example, you could wait until an appropriate time… sitting on your romantic feelings for a few weeks or months is not necessarily lying/having ulterior motives, as long as your friendly behavior during this time is sincere. Especially if you are trying to consider your own feelings and figure out if the attraction is meaningful or not. And then when the time seems appropriate, and you mention it, and you are shot down, you should still want to be friends if it was a sincere friendship. I think most women find that situation refreshing since so many men ghost after being told no.

Another thing could be acknowledging attraction early on. Like you tell them that you find them attractive as soon as you have any feelings, but you also tell them that your main interest is friendship, and you mean it. You then continue getting to know them without pushing sex or romance onto them or making conversations weird. Again, I think many women find this sort of clear non-pressuring communication to be pretty refreshing compared to how most men approach these topics.

326

I would have questions. Will the guy never bring it up again or will he think to himself that maybe she changed her mind without telling him? Will he ever make a passive-aggressive comment about it in the future or be jealous of or biased against anyone else she dates in the future? Before the guy said anything, was it already a situation where the girl knew she could date the guy if she wanted to, and she chose not to initiate that? After being rejected once, will the guy be able to (reasonably quickly) stop thinking of her that way after spending weeks/months deciding his attraction was meaningful?