6 ms·

There's something missing from this screenshot! https://twitter.com/katiekovalcin/status/630751505117659136 https://twitter.com/katiekovalcin/status/6307515051

There's something missing from this screenshot! https://twitter.com/katiekovalcin/status/630751505117659136 https://twitter.com/katiekovalcin/status/630751505117659136 What's missing is her response stating, "I'm not interested in you that way, please don't text me anything romantic. See you at the conference!" Oh, what's that? Did she decide not to do that? Women, if you want the right to say, literally this - I am not making it up: http://imgur.com/oW4sGMY http://imgur.com/oW4sGMY Then you have to say, "I'm not interested in you, please don't ask me again." The people who express this sentiment in the current thread are completely correct, and if she didn't reply that way then that women is in the wrong. Ladies, you LITERALLY cannot have it both ways. You CANNOT say you want a guy to text you, you want a guy to ask you out, if you are not willing to say no to them. Where's that part of the screenshot? Oh, that's right: nowhere. She expressed the same level of interest in him as I do in all the women I'd be interested in dating if I were a little less busy in life. It takes exceptional bravery and flaunting of gender roles for any of them to ask me out though - the ball is literally completely in my court. Why? Because "I want a guy to ask me out."

interpol_p 11y ago
Your mindset about this is shocking and scarily misogynistic. A person doesn't "have" to say anything if they are not interested. That's pretty much a great way to show you are not interested: don't respond. Ignore the text. It lets both parties move on without some explicit and awkward rejection. You are blaming all women for the fact that some men can't take a hint. And that screenshot of Google search predictions (seriously, what the hell). Why would you think that has any bearing on how anyone should think and act? Why would you think that defines all women? Do you hold your own self to the standard of what a Google search prediction tells you to do? I sincerely hope you are just an angry teenager who has time to grow up and not a professional man working with others.
- Nadya 11y ago
  "Ignoring is an answer." - Except for when it isn't. Which is more often than not. Was the message missed? Or possibly they were busy at the time and forgot to respond later? If the few people I keep in contact with didn't try multiple times to reach me - I'd never talk to anyone. I'm hard to reach because the few methods of contact I have, I largely ignore. I have a phone in my pocket that, without looking at it, I am willing to bet has 3+ missed calls and at least 4 people waiting over a week for a response to a text message and a sister who probably thinks I am dead because the last time I replied to one of her messages was over a year ago. The fact that people like me exist runs entirely contrary to your claim and is why an explicit response should be socially necessary. If someone interested in dating me didn't try repeatedly, even if I was "ignoring them", they'd never get anywhere. Because chances are I saw their message, cleared the notification, and forgot to respond.
  - interpol_p 11y ago
    So what if someone doesn't reply? It's not the end of the world. And it certainly does not give you the right to harass them with increasingly sexual explicit messaging (what happened in this case). There are polite ways to see whether someone got your message (e.g. a simple "did you get my message?") when you see them in person. I don't think your example really accounts for the myriad of ways this man could have gracefully handled being turned down. Doesn't really matter whether some people are bad at responding to messages. It's not an excuse for this behaviour nor should it be a "social requirement" for people to have to turn down unwanted advances explicitly (that's ridiculous).
    - Nadya 11y ago
      You're right about harassment/explicit sexual messaging, but I wasn't speaking about that case. I was speaking about a lack of response in general. Some people, regardless of gender, simply don't get the message. For example, this ex-coworker of mine: http://i.imgur.com/udbGjWI.png http://i.imgur.com/udbGjWI.png (history goes back to 2013 without a single response). People get all up in arms about bullying and namecalling or racism against strangers - but psychological abuse is perfectly acceptable. I feel bad for not responding - but she knew me before my transition and I don't feel comfortable telling a coworker who was romantically interested in me (and made it known to me) that I've transitioned. Especially since I'm still stealth and especially because they know other people I'm still in contact with. >I don't think your example really accounts for the myriad of ways this man could have gracefully handled being turned down. Being ignored is not being turned down. >nor should it be a "social requirement" for people to have to turn down unwanted advances explicitly (that's ridiculous). Until people have telepathy and can tell when an advance is unwanted without cue, I disagree. Implicitly to you doesn't mean implicitly to everyone. What you might think is giving off one message could be picked up as an entirely different message by someone else. Non-direct communication has the whole problem of not being direct. Here, have an example: A girl I knew in high school used to avoid me in the halls going between classes. I've made some attempts at speaking to her, but she's never responded and always ran off. Knowing only this implicit information, which of the following is true: a) she was afraid of me and trying to avoid me b) she had a crush on me and got embarrassed when I was around With the information I've given you - it could be either one. Couldn't it? I'll give you the answer though: it was B and we later ended up dating. But it was only because I made the effort to "keep bothering her" because I was picking up "B" as her implicit message. What if she actually felt like "A"? How different would that have been for her? What if my advances were unwanted attention and were making her feel more uncomfortable? I'd have no way of knowing. (And you'd think of me as some pushy asshole for it, thanks.) Thinking she has a crush on me, I might be a bit more pushy and outgoing with my advances because I think she likes me. Which would make her feel even more uncomfortable. If I was interpreting her "A" message as a "B" message, she's making things much harder on herself than if she was explicit about her "A" feelings. If I picked up on "B" messages but she meant "A" that makes me an asshole in your book. If she meant "B", and my actions would have been the same if she meant "A" due to the implicit message, I should still be considered an asshole. Since my actions were the same! Finally, if I assume "A" even though it's "B" would I be an insensitive asshole? I don't see any way in that scenario where I wouldn't be an asshole. I have to take a chance and hope she means "B" like I think she does for a "mutually beneficial result" to happen (though I'm still an asshole).
- throwaway583283 11y ago
  First of all, out of curiosity into whether you have any personal insight into the matter at all, whatsoever, may I ask whether you're a woman? (I will proceed with the assumption that you are.) So, you are literally taking my right away to be busy. I can literally "lead someone on", as in, express interest - then if I ignore their 8 texts, you are saying that I have expressed a lack of interest? Even though I have explicitly stated that I'm interested? Or does what you write only apply to women - I, as a man, am allowed to be busy and productive and once every two weeks say to a woman, "I'm just crazy busy" and in the mean time if she doesn't want to take the initiative she has to just stand by. But she, as a woman, doesn't have the same right to be busy: after I send two texts, she will never hear from me again, as she has to choose either to be warm and responsive or focus on everything else going on in her life? She can't have her cake and eat it too - but I can? I can ask a woman out whenever I want, once, and in the mean time arrange my time however I want - but she has to immediately warmly accept or lose me forever? So, you're saying I, the man, get to run the show, get to decide whether I'm interested in someone or interested but too busy to respond, but women do not have the same luxury? Got it. At the top of this post, the reason I asked whether you're a woman is that dating isn't some small, incidental part of culture: it is huge. I don't set the rules. You're saying that the rules "ought" to be that if someone ignores two messages, they have expressed explicit uninterest, whereas I say the rules are that it can be only an indication. your view is I would say the more misogynistic one: it would apply to mentally handicapped people, or children, who are unable to form opinions of consent or non-consent. Any adult or legal person can easily say "no thanks, I'm not interested in you romantically". seriously, how hard is that?
  - interpol_p 11y ago
    I'm a man. Gender is irrelevant and you are way too focused on it. You know what you don't do? Send someone you are interested in 8 texts if they are not responding. You let it go and get on with your life. Both women and men have harassed their romantic interests. This is not something only one gender is guilty of. Stalking is a thing that happens when one person can't accept the idea that they've been rejected. That's what happened here. We don't blame the victim in this case just because she happens to be a woman. We don't blame her because she politely rejected this man and he couldn't accept it. That would be disgusting.

interpol_p 11y ago

Your mindset about this is shocking and scarily misogynistic. A person doesn't "have" to say anything if they are not interested. That's pretty much a great way to show you are not interested: don't respond. Ignore the text. It lets both parties move on without some explicit and awkward rejection. You are blaming all women for the fact that some men can't take a hint. And that screenshot of Google search predictions (seriously, what the hell). Why would you think that has any bearing on how anyone should think and act? Why would you think that defines all women? Do you hold your own self to the standard of what a Google search prediction tells you to do? I sincerely hope you are just an angry teenager who has time to grow up and not a professional man working with others.

Nadya 11y ago
"Ignoring is an answer." - Except for when it isn't. Which is more often than not. Was the message missed? Or possibly they were busy at the time and forgot to respond later? If the few people I keep in contact with didn't try multiple times to reach me - I'd never talk to anyone. I'm hard to reach because the few methods of contact I have, I largely ignore. I have a phone in my pocket that, without looking at it, I am willing to bet has 3+ missed calls and at least 4 people waiting over a week for a response to a text message and a sister who probably thinks I am dead because the last time I replied to one of her messages was over a year ago. The fact that people like me exist runs entirely contrary to your claim and is why an explicit response should be socially necessary. If someone interested in dating me didn't try repeatedly, even if I was "ignoring them", they'd never get anywhere. Because chances are I saw their message, cleared the notification, and forgot to respond.
- interpol_p 11y ago
  So what if someone doesn't reply? It's not the end of the world. And it certainly does not give you the right to harass them with increasingly sexual explicit messaging (what happened in this case). There are polite ways to see whether someone got your message (e.g. a simple "did you get my message?") when you see them in person. I don't think your example really accounts for the myriad of ways this man could have gracefully handled being turned down. Doesn't really matter whether some people are bad at responding to messages. It's not an excuse for this behaviour nor should it be a "social requirement" for people to have to turn down unwanted advances explicitly (that's ridiculous).
  - Nadya 11y ago
    You're right about harassment/explicit sexual messaging, but I wasn't speaking about that case. I was speaking about a lack of response in general. Some people, regardless of gender, simply don't get the message. For example, this ex-coworker of mine: http://i.imgur.com/udbGjWI.png http://i.imgur.com/udbGjWI.png (history goes back to 2013 without a single response). People get all up in arms about bullying and namecalling or racism against strangers - but psychological abuse is perfectly acceptable. I feel bad for not responding - but she knew me before my transition and I don't feel comfortable telling a coworker who was romantically interested in me (and made it known to me) that I've transitioned. Especially since I'm still stealth and especially because they know other people I'm still in contact with. >I don't think your example really accounts for the myriad of ways this man could have gracefully handled being turned down. Being ignored is not being turned down. >nor should it be a "social requirement" for people to have to turn down unwanted advances explicitly (that's ridiculous). Until people have telepathy and can tell when an advance is unwanted without cue, I disagree. Implicitly to you doesn't mean implicitly to everyone. What you might think is giving off one message could be picked up as an entirely different message by someone else. Non-direct communication has the whole problem of not being direct. Here, have an example: A girl I knew in high school used to avoid me in the halls going between classes. I've made some attempts at speaking to her, but she's never responded and always ran off. Knowing only this implicit information, which of the following is true: a) she was afraid of me and trying to avoid me b) she had a crush on me and got embarrassed when I was around With the information I've given you - it could be either one. Couldn't it? I'll give you the answer though: it was B and we later ended up dating. But it was only because I made the effort to "keep bothering her" because I was picking up "B" as her implicit message. What if she actually felt like "A"? How different would that have been for her? What if my advances were unwanted attention and were making her feel more uncomfortable? I'd have no way of knowing. (And you'd think of me as some pushy asshole for it, thanks.) Thinking she has a crush on me, I might be a bit more pushy and outgoing with my advances because I think she likes me. Which would make her feel even more uncomfortable. If I was interpreting her "A" message as a "B" message, she's making things much harder on herself than if she was explicit about her "A" feelings. If I picked up on "B" messages but she meant "A" that makes me an asshole in your book. If she meant "B", and my actions would have been the same if she meant "A" due to the implicit message, I should still be considered an asshole. Since my actions were the same! Finally, if I assume "A" even though it's "B" would I be an insensitive asshole? I don't see any way in that scenario where I wouldn't be an asshole. I have to take a chance and hope she means "B" like I think she does for a "mutually beneficial result" to happen (though I'm still an asshole).
throwaway583283 11y ago
First of all, out of curiosity into whether you have any personal insight into the matter at all, whatsoever, may I ask whether you're a woman? (I will proceed with the assumption that you are.) So, you are literally taking my right away to be busy. I can literally "lead someone on", as in, express interest - then if I ignore their 8 texts, you are saying that I have expressed a lack of interest? Even though I have explicitly stated that I'm interested? Or does what you write only apply to women - I, as a man, am allowed to be busy and productive and once every two weeks say to a woman, "I'm just crazy busy" and in the mean time if she doesn't want to take the initiative she has to just stand by. But she, as a woman, doesn't have the same right to be busy: after I send two texts, she will never hear from me again, as she has to choose either to be warm and responsive or focus on everything else going on in her life? She can't have her cake and eat it too - but I can? I can ask a woman out whenever I want, once, and in the mean time arrange my time however I want - but she has to immediately warmly accept or lose me forever? So, you're saying I, the man, get to run the show, get to decide whether I'm interested in someone or interested but too busy to respond, but women do not have the same luxury? Got it. At the top of this post, the reason I asked whether you're a woman is that dating isn't some small, incidental part of culture: it is huge. I don't set the rules. You're saying that the rules "ought" to be that if someone ignores two messages, they have expressed explicit uninterest, whereas I say the rules are that it can be only an indication. your view is I would say the more misogynistic one: it would apply to mentally handicapped people, or children, who are unable to form opinions of consent or non-consent. Any adult or legal person can easily say "no thanks, I'm not interested in you romantically". seriously, how hard is that?
- interpol_p 11y ago
  I'm a man. Gender is irrelevant and you are way too focused on it. You know what you don't do? Send someone you are interested in 8 texts if they are not responding. You let it go and get on with your life. Both women and men have harassed their romantic interests. This is not something only one gender is guilty of. Stalking is a thing that happens when one person can't accept the idea that they've been rejected. That's what happened here. We don't blame the victim in this case just because she happens to be a woman. We don't blame her because she politely rejected this man and he couldn't accept it. That would be disgusting.